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.
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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.