SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2026
Psychometric Properties of Pain Scales in Inpatient Settings: An Umbrella Review.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo identify the pain assessment scales with the best psychometric properties to be used by nurses in an inpatient setting.
designUmbrella review.
methodsA comprehensive search of four databases was conducted for systematic reviews published from July 2013 to November 2024, focusing on psychometric properties of pain scales used in inpatient settings. Inclusion criteria required scales to assess subjective or behavioural pain and be nurse-administered, while reviews without detailed psychometric data were excluded. Screening, quality appraisal (JBI checklist), and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers. Data synthesis combined qualitative and quantitative approaches, with psychometric properties evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. The study was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement.
resultsSeventeen articles met the inclusion criteria, identifying 41 scales used across various patient populations, including critical care, paediatric, postoperative, cancer, cerebral palsy, disorders of consciousness, low back and neck pain, stroke and verbal communication disorders. The Paediatric Pain Profile, the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool and the Questionnaire on Pain caused by Spasticity demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, although the positive findings for the latter two should be confirmed by at least one additional study. Most of the scales (n = 36) require further studies to validate their use in clinical practice. For two scales, their clinical use remains questionable.
conclusionThe Paediatric Pain Profile, the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool, and the Questionnaire on Pain caused by Spasticity can be recommended for use. Unidimensional scales should complement, rather than replace, multidimensional scales to ensure a comprehensive pain assessment. Standardising documentation with validated scales enhances clinical decision-making, care quality, research usability, and reduces documentation burden.
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.