MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413292085 · doi:10.1111/jocn.70071

Psychometric Properties of Pain Scales in Inpatient Settings: An Umbrella Review

2025· review· en· W4413292085 on OpenAlexaff
Fabio D’Agostino, Noemi Giannetta, Gianfranco Sanson, Claudia Fantuzzi, Sara Cignola, Manuele Cesare, Daniela D’Angelo, Antonello Cocchieri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
FundersCentral ElectroChemical Research Institute
KeywordsChecklistPhysical therapyMedicinePain assessmentPain scaleMEDLINEData extractionSystematic reviewCritical appraisalPsychometricsCerebral palsyClinical psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyAlternative medicinePain management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To identify the pain assessment scales with the best psychometric properties to be used by nurses in an inpatient setting. DESIGN: Umbrella review. METHODS: A comprehensive search of four databases was conducted for systematic reviews published from July 2013 to November 2024, focusing on psychometric properties of pain scales used in inpatient settings. Inclusion criteria required scales to assess subjective or behavioural pain and be nurse-administered, while reviews without detailed psychometric data were excluded. Screening, quality appraisal (JBI checklist), and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers. Data synthesis combined qualitative and quantitative approaches, with psychometric properties evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. The study was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement. RESULTS: Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria, identifying 41 scales used across various patient populations, including critical care, paediatric, postoperative, cancer, cerebral palsy, disorders of consciousness, low back and neck pain, stroke and verbal communication disorders. The Paediatric Pain Profile, the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool and the Questionnaire on Pain caused by Spasticity demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, although the positive findings for the latter two should be confirmed by at least one additional study. Most of the scales (n = 36) require further studies to validate their use in clinical practice. For two scales, their clinical use remains questionable. CONCLUSION: The Paediatric Pain Profile, the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool, and the Questionnaire on Pain caused by Spasticity can be recommended for use. Unidimensional scales should complement, rather than replace, multidimensional scales to ensure a comprehensive pain assessment. Standardising documentation with validated scales enhances clinical decision-making, care quality, research usability, and reduces documentation burden.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.248
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.248
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.011
Bibliometrics0.0290.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207