The use and reporting of neonatal pain scales : a systematic review of randomized trials
Olsson, Emma ; Ahl, Hanna LU ; Bengtsson, Kevin ; Vejayaram, Dhashini N. ; Norman, Elisabeth LU ; Bruschettini, Matteo LU
and Eriksson, Mats
(2021)
In Pain
162(2).
p.353-360
- Abstract
ABSTRACT: The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the specific type of pain or infant condition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting of neonatal pain scales in randomized trials. A systematic search up to March 2019 was performed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Luxid. Randomized and quasirandomized trials reporting neonatal pain scales were included. Screening of the studies for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by 2 researchers. Of 3718 trials found, 352 with 29,137 infants and 22 published pain scales were... (More)
ABSTRACT: The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the specific type of pain or infant condition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting of neonatal pain scales in randomized trials. A systematic search up to March 2019 was performed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Luxid. Randomized and quasirandomized trials reporting neonatal pain scales were included. Screening of the studies for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by 2 researchers. Of 3718 trials found, 352 with 29,137 infants and 22 published pain scales were included. Most studies (92%) concerned procedural pain, where the most frequently used pain scales were the Premature Infant Pain Profile or Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (48%), followed by the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (23%). Although the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale is validated only for acute pain, it was also the second most used scale for ongoing and postoperative pain (21%). Only in a third of the trials, blinding for those performing the pain assessment was described. In 55 studies (16%), pain scales that were used lacked validation for the specific neonatal population or type of pain. Six validated pain scales were used in 90% of all trials, although not always in the correct population or type of pain. Depending on the type of pain and population of infants included in a study, appropriate scales should be selected. The inappropriate use raises serious concerns about research ethics and use of resources.
(Less)
- author
- Olsson, Emma
; Ahl, Hanna
LU
; Bengtsson, Kevin
; Vejayaram, Dhashini N.
; Norman, Elisabeth
LU
; Bruschettini, Matteo
LU
and Eriksson, Mats
- organization
- publishing date
- 2021-02-01
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Pain
- volume
- 162
- issue
- 2
- pages
- 8 pages
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:32826760
- scopus:85091783302
- ISSN
- 1872-6623
- DOI
- 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002046
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Copyright: This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
- id
- 26c60a99-1779-4830-af75-41c33f34482b
- date added to LUP
- 2021-03-12 14:06:54
- date last changed
- 2024-04-18 03:18:38
@article{26c60a99-1779-4830-af75-41c33f34482b,
abstract = {{<p>ABSTRACT: The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the specific type of pain or infant condition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting of neonatal pain scales in randomized trials. A systematic search up to March 2019 was performed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Luxid. Randomized and quasirandomized trials reporting neonatal pain scales were included. Screening of the studies for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by 2 researchers. Of 3718 trials found, 352 with 29,137 infants and 22 published pain scales were included. Most studies (92%) concerned procedural pain, where the most frequently used pain scales were the Premature Infant Pain Profile or Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (48%), followed by the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (23%). Although the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale is validated only for acute pain, it was also the second most used scale for ongoing and postoperative pain (21%). Only in a third of the trials, blinding for those performing the pain assessment was described. In 55 studies (16%), pain scales that were used lacked validation for the specific neonatal population or type of pain. Six validated pain scales were used in 90% of all trials, although not always in the correct population or type of pain. Depending on the type of pain and population of infants included in a study, appropriate scales should be selected. The inappropriate use raises serious concerns about research ethics and use of resources.</p>}},
author = {{Olsson, Emma and Ahl, Hanna and Bengtsson, Kevin and Vejayaram, Dhashini N. and Norman, Elisabeth and Bruschettini, Matteo and Eriksson, Mats}},
issn = {{1872-6623}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{02}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{353--360}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Pain}},
title = {{The use and reporting of neonatal pain scales : a systematic review of randomized trials}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002046}},
doi = {{10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002046}},
volume = {{162}},
year = {{2021}},
}