ArticleBMJ open2025
Defining the need for analgesia in the emergency department: protocol for an international Delphi process.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of hypnotic communication on pain during arterial blood gas standardized procedures in the emergency department compared with traditional communication: a triple-blind randomized controlled trial (POPAIN study).European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine · 2026Trial
- Defining the need for analgesia in the emergency department: an international consensus statement.European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe high prevalence of pain in the emergency department (ED) highlights the importance of accurate assessments to provide effective interventions. However, common pain scales such as the Numerical Pain Rating Scale have shown limitations in assessing analgesic requirements and adequacy. The ideal outcome for evaluating a pain scale predicting analgesic requirements would be the 'need for analgesia', for which there is no universally accepted definition. Accordingly, the primary aim of this study is to define the 'need for analgesia' using an interdisciplinary approach. The secondary aim is to define the 'adequacy of analgesia'. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-stage modified Delphi process will be conducted by a core study group chosen for its expertise in ED pain management. A larger expert panel, identified through a comprehensive search in Scopus and CINAHL databases, will be invited to participate in the study and will be supplemented by patients recruited via international patient organisations or snowballing. In stage 1, the expert panel will complete a written survey to collect potential clinical variables for defining the 'need for analgesia' and 'adequacy of analgesia'. The core study group will elaborate on these variables. In stage 2, the same participants will use a five-point Likert scale to achieve consensus defined as ≥80% of combined agreement on the proposed variables, over a maximum of three rounds. The same process will be used to define the 'adequacy of analgesia'. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Ethics Committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland exempted the project from committee approval under the Human Research Act. Written consent will be obtained from all participants. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.