ReviewJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2025
Expert consensus on feasibility and application of automatic pain assessment in routine clinical use.
Review in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- From the Pain Matrix to Functional Networks: A Narrative Review of Chronic Pain Mechanisms Across Adult and Pediatric Populations with Emerging AI Perspectives.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Neuropathic Pain: From Mechanisms to Neuromodulation and Regenerative Strategies.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Refining multiple artificial intelligence strategies for automatic pain assessment investigations (RUGGI Study): A study protocol.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2026Article
- Nurses' Lived Experiences of Assessing Pain in Hospitalized Children in Indonesia: A Qualitative Phenomenological Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Objective stratification of knee osteoarthritis stages using a semi-supervised learning approach on multimodal MRI-CT cartilage features.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Top three priorities for artificial intelligence integration into emergency, critical, and perioperative medicine: an interdisciplinary clinical expert consensus.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Review
- Bioengineering Support in the Assessment and Rehabilitation of Low Back Pain.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Identifying strategies to characterize the diversity of the MS population in Canada: a nominal group study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
41 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain is often difficult to assess, particularly in non-communicative patients. While artificial intelligence (AI)-based objective Automatic Pain Assessment (APA) systems are a promising solution, their clinical implementation raises essential questions, primarily regarding clinician acceptance.
methodsWe conducted a survey-to-consensus investigation on the feasibility and application of APA for clinical use. Firstly, the steering committee implemented the CHERRIES guidelines and designed a questionnaire for healthcare professionals. Given the survey results, 26 experts in pain medicine were asked to participate in a two-round consensus by rating 10 statements through a 7-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement ("agree" or "completely agree"). For both phases, data was collected through online questionnaires and analyzed quantitatively.
resultsFor the survey, we collected responses from 628 healthcare professionals. The output highlighted excellent acceptance of the technology and a preference for multidimensional techniques. After two rounds, consensus was achieved on 8 out of 10 statements. Experts agreed on APA utility in supporting healthcare professionals and real-time pain monitoring. A strong consensus (96.2%) supported the need to inform patients about the use and limitations of AI systems. Adequate staff training is mandatory. Moreover, 92.3% agreed on the importance of implementing risk management, data quality control, and AI governance throughout the APA lifecycle. The experts stressed the need for internal and external validation processes and periodic updates, even for research purposes. Consensus was also reached about the importance of involving interdisciplinary stakeholders and addressing regulatory, ethical, and social implications. Multimodal inputs (e.g., physiological signals, facial expressions, speech, and clinical data) in APA systems are recommended. Additionally, APA systems should be capable of grading pain levels (e.g., via NRS), not just detecting the presence of pain. On the other hand, two statements did not reach consensus: the applicability of APA systems for acute and chronic pain conditions and their potential to improve therapeutic strategies.
conclusionAPA is viewed as a promising and potentially feasible technology for clinical pain assessment, particularly in vulnerable populations. Further research is needed to validate the dedicated tools, define applications in different clinical conditions (e.g., acute and chronic pain), and demonstrate their impact on routine clinical practice for pain management.
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.