ReviewAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2025
Objective monitoring of acute pain and nociception in anaesthesia and intensive care: evidence and applications.
Review in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined iPACK and adductor canal block versus two-level erector spinae plane block in elderly patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, triple-blinded clinical trial.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Trial
- Opioid-sparing and opioid-free anaesthesia: concepts, rationale, evidence, and practical implications.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2026Review
- Use of Intra-Operative EEG Monitoring for Nociception Balance Quantification-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Procedural Pain and Situational Anxiety in Pediatric Patients: A Narrative Review of Assessment Tools.Pediatric reports · 2026Review
- Optimization of multimodal analgesic drug combinations under the concept of precision anesthesia.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing pain in non-communicative patients remains challenging in anaesthesia and intensive care. When self-report is unavailable, clinicians infer nociception from behaviour and physiology. Behavioural scales such as the Behavioral Pain Scale and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool are simple and reproducible, supporting consistent practice; however, performance declines with deep sedation, neuromuscular blockade, or severe neurological injury. Where behavioural cues are absent or unreliable, physiological and neurophysiological signals provide partial information. Autonomic indicators, including heart rate variability, the Surgical Pleth Index, pupillometry, and skin conductance, capture sympathetic responses to noxious stimuli rather than perceived pain and are sensitive to drugs, haemodynamic instability, shivering, and agitation. Electroencephalography and functional near-infrared spectroscopy identify cortical responses to nociceptive input, yet clinically useful thresholds remain context dependent, and most applications are research-based. Emerging machine-learning systems that integrate behaviour and physiology show promise, but models validated in the operating room are not automatically applicable in the intensive care unit and require new external validation with potential recalibration. Evidence is generally stronger intraoperatively than in intensive care, and paediatric data are limited. No instrument directly measures subjective pain when self-report is absent. Available tools index nociception through behavioural and physiological correlates and must be interpreted within the clinical context.
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.