MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recommendations for selection of self-report pain intensity measures in children and adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment of measurement properties

2018· review· en· W2889059924 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityPhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleRating scalePsychometricsConstruct validityReliability (semiconductor)Content validityScale (ratio)Systematic reviewClinical psychologyPsychologyCriterion validityPain assessmentMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMEDLINEDevelopmental psychologyPain managementArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it