Dataset Information

Utility of unidimensional and functional pain assessment tools in adult postoperative patients: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We aimed to appraise the evidence relating to the measurement properties of unidimensional tools to quantify pain after surgery. Furthermore, we wished to identify the tools used to assess interference of pain with functional recovery.

Methods

Four electronic sources (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched in August 2020. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.

Results

Thirty-one studies with a total of 12 498 participants were included. Most of the studies failed to meet the methodological quality standards required by COSMIN. Studies of unidimensional assessment tools were underpinned by low-quality evidence for reliability (five studies), and responsiveness (seven studies). Convergent validity was the most studied property (13 studies) with moderate to high correlation ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 between unidimensional tools. Interpretability results were available only for the visual analogue scale (seven studies) and numerical rating scale (four studies). Studies on functional assessment tools were scarce; only one study included an 'Objective Pain Score,' a tool assessing pain interference with respiratory function, and it had low-quality for convergent validity.

Conclusions

This systematic review challenges the validity and reliability of unidimensional tools in adult patients after surgery. We found no evidence that any one unidimensional tool has superior measurement properties in assessing postoperative pain. In addition, because promoting function is a crucial perioperative goal, psychometric validation studies of functional pain assessment tools are needed to improve pain assessment and management.

Clinical trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42020213495.

SUBMITTER: Baamer RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9074792 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Utility of unidimensional and functional pain assessment tools in adult postoperative patients: a systematic review.

Baamer Reham M RM Iqbal Ayesha A Lobo Dileep N DN Knaggs Roger D RD Levy Nicholas A NA Toh Li S LS

British journal of anaesthesia 20220105 5

<h4>Background</h4>We aimed to appraise the evidence relating to the measurement properties of unidimensional tools to quantify pain after surgery. Furthermore, we wished to identify the tools used to assess interference of pain with functional recovery.<h4>Methods</h4>Four electronic sources (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched in August 2020. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Meas ...[more]

PMID: 34996588

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is evidence of under-detection and poor management of pain in patients with dementia, in both long-term and acute care. Accurate assessment of pain in people with dementia is challenging and pain assessment tools have received considerable attention over the years, with an increasing number of tools made available. Systematic reviews on the evidence of their validity and utility mostly compare different sets of tools. This review of systematic reviews analyses and summarises evidence concerning the psychometric properties and clinical utility of pain assessment tools in adults with dementia or cognitive impairment.MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews of pain assessment tools providing evidence of reliability, validity and clinical utility. Two reviewers independently assessed each review and extracted data from them, with a third reviewer mediating when consensus was not reached. Analysis of the data was carried out collaboratively. The reviews were synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach.ResultsWe retrieved 441 potentially eligible reviews, 23 met the criteria for inclusion and 8 provided data for extraction. Each review evaluated between 8 and 13 tools, in aggregate providing evidence on a total of 28 tools. The quality of the reviews varied and the reporting often lacked sufficient methodological detail for quality assessment. The 28 tools appear to have been studied in a variety of settings and with varied types of patients. The reviews identified several methodological limitations across the original studies. The lack of a 'gold standard' significantly hinders the evaluation of tools' validity. Most importantly, the samples were small providing limited evidence for use of any of the tools across settings or populations.ConclusionsThere are a considerable number of pain assessment tools available for use with the elderly cognitive impaired population. However there is limited evidence about their reliability, validity and clinical utility. On the basis of this review no one tool can be recommended given the existing evidence.

Project description:BackgroundVerbal communication is the "gold standard" for assessing pain. Consequently, individuals with communication disorders are particularly vulnerable to incomplete pain management. This review aims at identifying the current pain assessment instruments for adult patients with communication disorders.MethodsA systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted on PubMed, PEDRO, EBSCOhost, VHL and Cochrane databases from 2011 to 2023 using MeSH terms "pain assessment, "nonverbal communication" and "communication disorders" in conjunction with additional inclusion criteria: studies limited to humans, interventions involving adult patients, and empirical investigations.ResultsFifty articles were included in the review. Seven studies report sufficient data to perform the meta-analysis. Observational scales are the most common instruments to evaluate pain in individuals with communication disorders followed by physiological measures and facial recognition systems. While most pain assessments rely on observational scales, current evidence does not strongly endorse one scale over others for clinical practice. However, specific observational scales appear to be particularly suitable for identifying pain during certain potentially painful procedures, such as suctioning and mobilization, in these populations. Additionally, specific observational scales appear to be well-suited for certain conditions, such as mechanically ventilated patients.ConclusionsWhile observational scales dominate pain assessment, no universal tool exists for adults with communication disorders. Specific scales exhibit promise for distinct populations, yet the diverse landscape of tools hampers a one-size-fits-all solution. Crucially, further high-quality research, offering quantitative data like reliability findings, is needed to identify optimal tools for various contexts. Clinicians should be informed to select tools judiciously, recognizing the nuanced appropriateness of each in diverse clinical situations.Trial registrationThis systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) with the ID: CRD42022323655 .

Project description:Background: Pain is a common problem after stroke and is associated with poor outcomes. There is no consensus on the optimal method of pain assessment in stroke. A review of the properties of tools should allow an evidence based approach to assessment. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review published data on pain assessment tools used in stroke, with particular focus on classical test properties of: validity, reliability, feasibility, responsiveness. Methods: We searched multiple, cross-disciplinary databases for studies evaluating properties of pain assessment tools used in stroke. We assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. We used a modified harvest plot to visually represent psychometric properties across tests. Results: The search yielded 12 relevant articles, describing 10 different tools (n = 1,106 participants). There was substantial heterogeneity and an overall high risk of bias. The most commonly assessed property was validity (eight studies) and responsiveness the least (one study). There were no studies with a neuropathic or headache focus. Included tools were either scales or questionnaires. The most commonly assessed tool was the Faces Pain Scale (FPS) (6 studies). The limited number of papers precluded meaningful meta-analysis at level of pain assessment tool or pain syndrome. Even where common data were available across papers, results were conflicting e.g., two papers described FPS as feasible and two described the scale as having feasibility issues. Conclusion: Robust data on the properties of pain assessment tools for stroke are limited. Our review highlights specific areas where evidence is lacking and could guide further research to identify the best tool(s) for assessing post-stroke pain. Improving feasibility of assessment in stroke survivors should be a future research target. Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42019160679 Available online at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019160679.

Project description:Proper pain therapy requires adequate pain assessment. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the Unesp-Botucatu horse acute pain scale (UHAPS), the Orthopedic Composite Pain Scale (CPS) and unidimensional scales in horses admitted for orthopedic and soft tissue surgery. Forty-two horses were assessed and videotaped before surgery, up to 4 hours postoperatively, up to 3 hours after analgesic treatment, and 24 hours postoperatively (168 video clips). After six evaluators viewing each edited video clip twice in random order at a 20-day interval, they chose whether analgesia would be indicated and applied the Simple Descriptive, Numeric and Visual Analog scales, CPS, and UHAPS. For all evaluators, intra-observer reliability of UHAPS and CPS ranged from 0.70 to 0.97. Reproducibility was variable among the evaluators and ranged from poor to very good for all scales. Principal component analysis showed a weak association among 50% and 62% of the UHAPS and CPS items, respectively. Criterion validity based on Spearman correlation among all scales was above 0.67. Internal consistency was minimally acceptable (0.51-0.64). Item-total correlation was acceptable (0.3-0.7) for 50% and 38% of UHAPS and CPS items, respectively. UHAPS and CPS were specific (90% and 79% respectively), but both were not sensitive (43 and 38%, respectively). Construct validity (responsiveness) was confirmed for all scales because pain scores increased after surgery. The cut-off point for rescue analgesia was ≥ 5 and ≥ 7 for the UHAPS and CPS, respectively. All scales presented adequate repeatability, criterion validity, and partial responsiveness. Both composite scales showed poor association among items, minimally acceptable internal consistency, and weak sensitivity, indicating that they are suboptimal instruments for assessing postoperative pain. Both composite scales require further refinement with the exclusion of redundant or needless items and reduction of their maximum score applied to each item or should be replaced by other tools.

Project description:This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and US Clinical Trials registry on November 21, 2020. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing dental extractions comparing 10 interventions, including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and combinations to placebo. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, we conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis for each outcome at 6 h (i.e., pain relief, total pain relief [TOTPAR], summed pain intensity difference [SPID], global efficacy rating, rescue analgesia, and adverse effects). We assessed the risk of bias using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We implemented the analyses in RStudio version 3.5.3 and classified interventions from most to least beneficial or harmful. We included 82 RCTs. Fifty-six RCTs enrolling 9,095 participants found moderate- and high-certainty evidence that ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (mean difference compared to placebo [MDp], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.31), acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MDp, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54), ibuprofen 400 mg (MDp, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45), and naproxen 400-440 mg (MDp, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.07-1.80) were most effective for pain relief on a 0 to 4 scale. Oxycodone 5 mg, codeine 60 mg, and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg were no better than placebo. The results for TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating, and rescue analgesia were similar. Based on low- and very low-certainty evidence, most interventions were classified as no more harmful than placebo for most adverse effects. Based on moderate- and high-certainty evidence, NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen result in better pain-related outcomes than opioids with or without acetaminophen (except acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg) or placebo.

Dataset Information

Utility of unidimensional and functional pain assessment tools in adult postoperative patients: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trial registration

Publications

Utility of unidimensional and functional pain assessment tools in adult postoperative patients: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets