Observational studyPloS one2025
Validity and reliability of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) for critically ill pediatric patients.
Observational study in PloS one, 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.
- Rethinking Pain Assessment: Subjective Scales, Biomarkers, and Multimodal Integration.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Dynamic prediction model for early postoperative pain based on generalized estimating equations: a multi-timepoint longitudinal study.American journal of translational research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn some regions, critically ill pediatric and adult patients are cared for in the same intensive care unit, complicating pain assessment due to mixed age groups. To address this, it is essential to use pain scales that are applicable to a wide age range. The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) was developed to assess pain in both intubated and non-intubated adult patients. However, its applicability in pediatric patients has not been confirmed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate CPOT for critically ill pediatric patients.
methodsWe conducted a prospective observational study in an eight-bed open PICU from January 2022 to March 2023. Three research nurses independently assessed pain using CPOT, the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale, and an Observational Visual Analog Scale (VAS obs). Criterion-related and construct validity were examined using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between CPOT, VAS obs, and FLACC. Diagnostic performance was evaluated via ROC analysis using a FLACC score ≥ 4 as the reference. CPOT scores with and without medical interventions were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, and inter-rater reliability was assessed with Cohen's weighted κ.
resultsNinety-one patients were observed 165 times. CPOT strongly correlated with VAS obs (Spearman's ρ = 0.87, p < 0.01) and FLACC (Spearman's ρ = 0.84, p < 0.01). At a CPOT cut-off score of 3, sensitivity was 100% and specificity was 96.7%. CPOT effectively reflected pain levels during medical interventions (p < 0.01), and inter-rater reliability was high (weighted κ = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.799-0.941).
conclusionsThis study suggests that CPOT may be a useful tool for pain assessment in pediatric patients.
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.