Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567321›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2025

Comparative Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) for Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.

Derlin Thomas, Anoob J Kuruppasseril, Rahmath A Samad, Edwin J George

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Effect of Hand Massage on Pain, Anxiety, and Comfort Levels of Intensive Care Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

4 authors.

Derlin ThomasDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1399-197X
Anoob J KuruppasserilDepartment of Gastroenterology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1005-6801
Rahmath A SamadDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8693-5951
Edwin J GeorgeDepartment of Medicine, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5224-2659

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim and background: Evaluating pain in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation poses a unique clinical challenge, mainly because of their inability to self-report. Hence, our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) and the behavioral pain scale (BPS) in these patients. Additionally, we determined their individual and combined accuracy against the nonverbal pain scale (NVPS) and examined their correlation with physiological indicators, specifically heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP). Patients and methods: Fifty mechanically ventilated patients were enrolled, with eight subsequently dropping out. Sedation was maintained using morphine and midazolam infusions, targeting a Ramsay Sedation Score above 3. Pain evaluation with CPOT, BPS, and NVPS were done at rest and during two painful stimuli: tracheal suctioning and patient repositioning, along with HR and BP measurements. Data were collected at four time points: At rest, during suctioning, post-repositioning, and finally again at rest. Results: Combined CPOT and BPS displayed superior diagnostic performance, showing the highest sensitivity (0.88), specificity (0.85), and AUC (0.87). Individually, both BPS (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.80) and CPOT (sensitivity 0.83, specificity 0.82) showed considerable accuracy, while NVPS (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.78) revealed comparatively lower sensitivity and specificity. Conclusion: The combined use of CPOT and BPS offers the most reliable method for assessing pain in ventilated ICU patients. Even though NVPS can be an ancillary tool, a multimodal pain assessment strategy ensures optimal patient comfort and care. How to cite this article: Thomas D, Kuruppasseril AJ, Samad RA, George EJ. Comparative Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) for Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Prospective Observational Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(6):492-497.

Indexed as

Critical illnessIntensive care unitsMechanical ventilationPain assessment behavioral pain scale

Identifiers

PMID40567321
PMCPMC12186075

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.