Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40089403›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2025

A core outcome set of measurement instruments for assessing effectiveness and efficacy of perioperative pain management: results of the international IMI-PainCare PROMPT Delphi consensus process.

Esther M Pogatzki-Zahn, Sarah De Lucia, Claudia Weinmann, Hauke Heitkamp, Lone Hummelshoj, Hiltrud Liedgens, Winfried Meissner, Katy Vincent, Jan Vollert, Peter Zahn and 3 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Esther M Pogatzki-ZahnDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany. Electronic address: pogatzki@anit.uni-muenster.de.
Sarah De LuciaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Claudia WeinmannDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany.
Hauke HeitkampDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Lone HummelshojEndometriosis.org, London, UK.
Hiltrud LiedgensGrunenthal GmbH, Aachen, Germany.
Winfried MeissnerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany.
Katy VincentNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jan VollertDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany; Department of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Peter ZahnDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, and Pain Management, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil GmbH Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
IMI-PainCare PROMPT Consensus Panel
Ulrike KaiserUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Germany.
Daniela C RosenbergerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective perioperative pain management is crucial to prevent patient suffering, delayed recovery, chronic postsurgical pain, and long-term opioid use. However, the heterogeneous use of outcomes in studies complicates evidence synthesis and might not accurately reflect the experiences of individual patients. We initiated a consensus process to establish a core outcome set (COS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in postoperative pain, building upon the earlier consensus on a COS of domains.

methodsPotential PROMs were identified via systematic literature searches for the domains pain intensity (with subdomains at rest and during activity), physical function, self-efficacy, and adverse events, followed by appraisal of psychometric properties according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology. Then, a consensus meeting was convened, followed by a Delphi process with an international, multiprofessional panel of stakeholders, including those with lived experience. A conclusive consensus meeting approved the final COS of PROMs.

resultsThe final COS consists of one unidimensional numerical rating scale for assessing pain intensity on average, worst pain intensity, pain intensity at rest, and procedure-specific pain intensity during activity; one unidimensional scale for pain interfering with activities in bed; one procedure-specific scale for assessing physical function; the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale for assessing self-efficacy; and the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale for assessing adverse events.

conclusionsComprehensive use of a core outcome set will help harmonise outcome assessment, facilitate comparisons between studies, promote patient-centred research, and improve postoperative pain care.

Indexed as

Pain ManagementPain MeasurementPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPerioperative CarePostoperative PainConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansPsychometricsconsensus processcore outcome setDelphi approachpatient-reported outcome measurepostoperative painpsychometric propertiesquestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID40089403
PMCPMC12106875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.