Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2026
Prehospital Emergency Nurse competence and pain management in patients with acute abdominal pain: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain is common in emergency medical services, and abdominal pain is among the most frequent complaints. This study examined whether documented pain assessment, analgesic treatment, reassessment, and documented end-of-encounter pain status in patients with acute abdominal pain differed by clinician competence (Prehospital Emergency Nurse [PEN] vs. non-PEN), patient sex, age, and prehospital interval.
methodsThis retrospective observational study was a secondary analysis of adult patients with acute abdominal pain in a previously described cohort. Electronic patient records were reviewed in full, including Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores and free-text pain descriptions. Primary outcomes were documented pain assessment, analgesia administration, and any documented reassessment. Secondary outcomes were documented NRS use, analgesia among patients with moderate-severe pain, reassessment after analgesia, and mild pain at the last documented assessment. Age and prehospital interval were dichotomized at the median. Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests were used, with p < 0.01 considered statistically significant.
resultsOf 840 sampled records, 816 were included. Median age was 64 years (IQR 41-79), and median prehospital interval was 38 minutes (IQR 27-60). Compared with non-PEN encounters, PEN encounters had higher rates of pain assessment (67% vs. 53%, p = 0.003), analgesia administration (50% vs. 37%, p = 0.005), and reassessment (31% vs. 17%, p < 0.001). Among patients with moderate-severe pain, analgesia was more frequent in PEN encounters (81% vs. 58%, p < 0.001). Mild pain at the last documented assessment was also more common in PEN encounters (23% vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Younger patients and cases with longer prehospital intervals had higher rates of pain assessment, NRS use, analgesia administration, and reassessment, but not mild pain at last assessment.
conclusionsThe PEN encounters showed higher rates of documented pain assessment, analgesia administration, and reassessment, with a higher proportion of patients having mild pain at the last documented assessment. Differences related to age and prehospital interval were mainly limited to process measures. Further research is needed to clarify whether clinician competence and care processes translate into improved pain relief.
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.