Recommendations for selection of self-report pain intensity measures in children and adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment of measurement properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, PAIN published a systematic review of the measurement properties of self-report pain intensity measures in children and adolescents (Stinson JN, Kavanagh T, Yamada J, Gill N, Stevens B. Systematic review of the psychometric properties, interpretability and feasibility of self-report pain intensity measures for use in clinical trials in children and adolescents. PAIN 2006;125:143-57). Key developments in pediatric pain necessitate an update of this work, most notably growing use of the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS-11). Our aim was to review the measurement properties of single-item self-report pain intensity measures in children 3 to 18 years old. A secondary aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for measurement of child and adolescent self-report of acute, postoperative, and chronic pain. Methodological quality and sufficiency of measurement properties for reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability was assessed by at least 2 investigators using COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Searches identified 60 unique self-report measures, of which 8 (reported in 80 papers) met inclusion criteria. Well-established measures included the NRS-11, Color Analogue Scale (CAS), Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R; and original FPS), Pieces of Hurt, Oucher-Photographic and Numeric scales, Visual Analogue Scale, and Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (FACES). Quality of studies ranged from poor to excellent and generally reported sufficient criterion and construct validity, and responsiveness, with variable reliability. Content and cross-cultural validity were minimally assessed. Based on available evidence, the NRS-11, FPS-R, and CAS were strongly recommended for self-report of acute pain. Only weak recommendations could be made for self-report measures for postoperative and chronic pain. No measures were recommended for children younger than 6 years, identifying a need for further measurement refinement in this age range. Clinical practice and future research implications are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.284 | 0.520 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".