A comparison of three scales for measuring pain in children with cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Pain is a neglected problem in children with cognitive impairments, and few studies compare the clinical use of specific pain scales. We compared the Non-Communicating Children's Pain Checklist Postoperative Version (NCCPC-PV), the Echelle Douleur Enfant San Salvador (DESS) and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS). The first two were developed for children with cognitive impairment, and the third is a more general pain scale. METHODS: Two external observers and the child's caregiver assessed 40 children with cognitive impairment for pain levels. We assessed inter-rater agreement, correlation, dependence on knowledge of the child's behaviour, simplicity and adequacy in pain rating according to the caregiver for all three scales. RESULTS: The correlation between the NCCPC-PV and the DESS was strong (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.76) and better than between each scale and the CHEOPS. Although the DESS showed better inter-rater agreement, it was more dependent on familiarity with the child and was judged more difficult to use by all observers. The NCCPC-PV was the easiest use and the most appropriate for rating the child's pain. CONCLUSION: The NCCPC-PV was the easiest to use for pain assessment in cognitively impaired children and should be adopted in clinical settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".