ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2026
A systematic review of acute pain scoring instruments and their measurement properties in cats and dogs.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of acute pain can involve the use of pain scoring instruments. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesTo evaluate the measurement properties of instruments scoring acute pain in cats and dogs according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) for Outcome Measurement Instruments (OMIs). ANIMALS: This study did not include live animals.
methodsFive bibliographic databases were searched without restrictions on date. Inclusion criteria were original studies reporting the development or validation of instruments assessing acute pain for cats and dogs and their measurement properties. Exclusion criteria comprised studies reporting chronic pain, no or non-ordinal scoring systems, and studies/instruments not in English. Two investigators reviewed study titles, abstracts, and full texts. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was used to evaluate the following measurement properties: content validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, construct validity, and responsiveness.
resultsA total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 15 instruments assessing acute pain in cats and dogs. The UNESP-Botucatu multidimensional pain scale, its short form, and the Feline Grimace Scale demonstrated the highest quality of evidence and findings, with appropriate criterion and construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness. In general, instruments for dogs lacked development studies, thorough reporting and showed weaker evidence and lower quality of measurement properties than the ones in cats. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The quality of evidence and gaps of knowledge across various instruments evaluating acute pain were identified. The measurement properties of instruments in cats are currently superior to those in dogs.
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.