Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40122547›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Defining the need for analgesia in the emergency department: protocol for an international Delphi process.

Barbara Scotti, Anna Szczesna, Christian H Nickel, Bojana Degen, Olivier Hugli, Sandy Jean-Scherb, Lucrezia Rovati, Monika Kirsch, Fiona C Sampson, Gernot Mayer and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
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

12 authors.

Barbara ScottiDepartment of Internal Medicine and Emergency, Luzerner Kantonsspital Sursee, Sursee, Switzerland.
Anna SzczesnaEmergency Department, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Christian H NickelEmergency Department, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Bojana DegenDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-7263-7509
Olivier HugliEmergency Department, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2312-1625
Sandy Jean-ScherbDepartment of Pain Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Lucrezia RovatiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milano, Italy.
Monika KirschApplied Health and Nursing Sciences, Duale Hochschule Baden Wurttemberg, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Fiona C SampsonSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2321-0302
Gernot MayerEuropean Patient's Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Switzerland, Zürich, Switzerland.
Heike ThomysEuropean Patient's Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Switzerland, Zürich, Switzerland.
Bruno MinottiEmergency Department, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland bruno.minotti@usb.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4820-9968

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnalgesiaAnalgesicsEmergency Service, HospitalPainPain ManagementConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansPain MeasurementResearch DesignAnalgesicsEmergency DepartmentsPAIN MANAGEMENTPatient ParticipationPatient Reported Outcome Measures

Identifiers

PMID40122547
PMCPMC11934420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.