ArticleNursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals2026
Silent Pain or Silent Records? Pain Visibility, Documentation Ethics, and Nursing Management in Neurocritical Care.
Article in Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Silent Pain or Silent Records? Pain Visibility, Documentation Ethics, and Nursing Management in Neurocritical Care.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pain assessment in critical care is organised primarily around patient self-report and numerical scoring, an arrangement that protects the patient's first-person authority. In neurocritical care, however, critically ill patients with stroke may be unable to communicate because of aphasia, impaired consciousness, sedation, mechanical ventilation, or delirium. Under these conditions, the absence of a numerical score may reflect limitations in the systems through which pain is made visible rather than the absence of pain. This paper offers an empirically informed philosophical analysis of what a missing numerical pain score means in neurocritical care and asks how nursing can preserve clinically and ethically meaningful distinctions when a number cannot be responsibly produced. As an empirical point of departure, an extracted adult ischaemic-stroke ICU-stay dataset from MIMIC-IV (6054 ICU stays, 5065 patients) was used, focusing on the first pain score, defined as the earliest documented numerical pain score within the first 24 h after ICU admission among patients with stroke. The empirical material is treated not as epidemiological evidence but as an occasion for conceptual analysis. Of 6054 ICU stays, 2415 (39.9%) had no documented first pain score in the first-24-h structured field. This pattern is not interpreted as evidence that pain was absent, unassessed, or unrecognised in any individual case. Drawing on this finding, the paper develops a five-fold conceptual taxonomy of missingness: absence of pain, absence of self-report, absence of assessment, absence of documentation, and risk of non-recognition. Nursing management is presented as a moral-epistemic practice in which electronic record categories, quality indicators, staffing, education, and workflow shape whether possible pain becomes visible, documentable, auditable, and answerable. The central task is not to force every patient into a number, but to preserve clinically and ethically meaningful differences when a number cannot be responsibly produced.
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.