ArticlePain reports2025
Adapting two pain assessment tools for young people with cerebral palsy: a multi-stakeholder consensus study.
Article in Pain reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Test-retest reliability and measurement error of the pain interference questionnaire for cerebral palsy and the fear of pain questionnaire adapted for cerebral palsy.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Structural validity of the Pain Interference Questionnaire and Fear of Pain Questionnaire for children and young people with cerebral palsy.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Article
- Evidence-Based Classification, Assessment, and Management of Pain in Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Structured Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common cause of childhood physical disability. Chronic pain is a common comorbidity of CP; however, holistic pain assessment is challenging due to few available self-report tools for people with CP and diverse cognitive, communication, and functional abilities. Previous research has identified 2 tools for potential use in CP (Fear of Pain Questionnaire for Children-Short Form [FOPQ-C-SF] and Modified Brief Pain Inventory [mBPI]), along with potential modifications. Objectives: To gain consensus on modifications required to the FOPQ-C-SF and mBPI for use with children and young people with CP and chronic pain. Methods: A 2-round modified electronic Delphi study with people with lived experience (n = 19 and 16) and clinicians (n = 25 and 21) was conducted. Ethics was obtained through the Women's and Children's Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/HRE00154). A total of 37 modification suggestions to the FOPQ-C-SF and mBPI were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Consensus was determined as ≥75% of participants rating the suggestion as strongly agree/agree, or strongly disagree/disagree. Results: Seven modifications reached consensus for inclusion in the FOPQ-C-SF and 21 for the mBPI. No modifications reached consensus for exclusion for either tool. Modifications primarily focused on refining wording, enhancing visual representation of the tool for improved understanding and reducing the number of response options. Conclusion: Consensus has been reached on modifications to the FOPQ-C-SF and mBPI for young people with cerebral palsy. Future research will examine the comprehensibility of the adapted tools across the population.
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.