Adaptation and validity of the critical care pain observation tool: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is a pain assessment for critical patients in the intensive care unit, who are unable to report their pain. This review article provides a comprehensive review of the literature regarding validated CPOT. with the goal of identifying and documenting studies and procedures available for cultural adaptation and validation of CPOT. Method. Search for articles through the main databases, namely PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar. Review and reference checking was performed using inclusion and exclusion criteria. A collection of literature related to CPOT is included in the articles to be selected and those that meet the eligibility criteria will be included in the review. Result. The article search results obtained 13 articles that met the inclusion criteria which presented CPOT in 13 different languages, namely French-Canadian, Spanish, Traditional Chinese, German, Brazilian Portuguese, Turkish, European Portuguese, Polish, Persian, Chinese, Italian, Norwegian and Dutch. All of them present validity, reliability and translation method Conclusion. High reliability and validity between different versions of the CPOT language have been identified. This review provides a useful summary of systematic reviews of CPOT in future research.
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 | 0.026 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".