Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41739103›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine2026

Defining the need for analgesia in the emergency department: an international consensus statement.

Barbara Scotti, Christian H Nickel, Bojana Degen, Olivier Hugli, Sandy Jean-Scherb, Lucrezia Rovati, Monika Kirsch, Fiona C Sampson, Gernot Mayer, Heike Thomys and 1 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Barbara ScottiDepartment of Internal Medicine and Emergency Department, Lucerne Kantonsspital, Sursee.
Christian H NickelEmergency Department, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel.
Bojana DegenDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel.
Olivier HugliEmergency Department, Lausanne University Hospital and Lausanne University.
Sandy Jean-ScherbDepartment of Pain Medicine, University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Lucrezia RovatiSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Monika KirschApplied Health and Nursing Sciences, Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg (DHBW) Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Fiona C SampsonSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Gernot MayerEuropean Patient's Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Switzerland (EUPATI CH), Zürich, Switzerland.
Heike ThomysEuropean Patient's Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Switzerland (EUPATI CH), Zürich, Switzerland.
Bruno MinottiEmergency Department, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and importanceThe high prevalence of acute pain in the emergency department (ED) underscores the need for accurate pain assessment to guide effective interventions. A pain assessment tool for ED patients with acute pain should enable clinicians to distinguish those who require analgesia from those who do not. However, a universally accepted definition of the 'need for analgesia' is lacking.

objectiveTo identify predictors of the need for analgesia in ED patients through a consensus-based interdisciplinary approach. DESIGN/SETTING AND

participantsA three-stage modified Delphi was conducted. In stage 1, 63 international panel members, including clinicians, researchers, patients, and patient representatives from 15 countries, answered three open-ended questions to generate candidate predictor variables. In stage 2, the same participants rated these variables using a five-point Likert scale. In stage 3, randomly selected clinicians and patients were recruited internationally to complete a survey rating the consensus-derived variables. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the identification of variables defining the need for analgesia in ED patients without communication or cognitive impairments. Consensus was defined a priori as more than or equal to 80% of participants selecting 'agree' or 'strongly agree' after stage 2. Variables meeting this threshold were considered in the final consensus-derived items. Stage 3 aimed to evaluate agreement with these variables among a broader panel of frontline clinicians and patients, to assess alignment with the expert panel, primarily composed of researchers, while also addressing potential geographic and professional biases.

resultsStage 1 generated 20 potential clinical predictor variables to define the need for analgesia. In stage 2, the six consensus-derived variables were: (a) patient's perception of pain, (b) patient's desire for analgesia, (c) pain tolerance, (d) patient observation, (e) caregiver/relative's perception of the patient's pain, and (f) provider's perception of the patient's pain. In stage 3, the rating of these variables reached combined agreement ('agree' or 'strongly agree') ranging from 72% to 91%.

conclusionThe six consensus-derived variables provide a foundation for a multidimensional, patient-centered pain assessment framework, which will serve as the basis for developing and validating a new tool to improve analgesia for ED patients with acute pain.

Indexed as

Acute PainAnalgesiaAnalgesicsEmergency Service, HospitalPain ManagementPain MeasurementAdultDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnalgesicsacute pain assessmentacute pain managementconsensusDelphiemergency departmentpain scales

Identifiers

PMID41739103
PMCPMC13124263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.