Background
Methods
Criteria for considering reviews for inclusion
Criteria | Definitions | |
---|---|---|
Setting | Reviews pertaining to any setting |
Settings are for example acute hospitals, nursing homes, community settings. |
Patient population | Reviews of studies limited to adult dementia patients or adults with cognitive impairment. |
Dementia defined as “an acquired organic mental disorder with loss of intellectual abilities of sufficient severity to interfere with social or occupational functioning. The dysfunction is multifaceted […]” |
All stages of dementia in adults considered (e.g. mild, severe). |
Cognitive impairment defined as Cognition Disorder: “Disturbances in the mental process related to thinking, reasoning, and judgment”. Does not include Learning Disorders. (Source: MeSH vocabulary -http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/) | |
Intervention | Reviews of studies of the assessment of pain and of pain assessment tools. Reviews that include management of pain considered if they also cover assessment of pain. | Pain assessment as defined by IASP “entails a comprehensive evaluation of the patient’s pain, symptoms, functional status, and clinical history […]”. |
All forms of pain considered (e,g. acute pain, persistent), without distinction on location of pain (e.g. abdominal pain). | “[…] The assessment process is essentially a dialogue between the patient and the health care provider that addresses the nature, location and extent of the pain, and looks at the patient’s daily life, and concludes with the pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical treatment options available to manage it” [20]. Evaluation tools may be used in this process: “To varying degrees, these tools attempt to locate and quantify the severity and duration of the patient’s subjective pain experience […]” [20]. | |
Reviews of studies of pain assessment included, irrespective of the outcomes of the assessment (e.g. patients being in pain or not). | ||
Evaluation (method of) | Systematic reviews only to be included | Definition of systematic review: |
1. Review carried out systematically – i.e. publication that makes explicit the authors’ intention to review or summarise the literature (e.g. with review, overview, or meta-analysis in the title or in a section heading) [21]. | ||
2. Satisfying the following criteria [22]: | ||
- Clear set of objectives: explicit and clear research question | ||
- Reproducible methodology: the paper clearly explains how the evidence was retrieved, including sources and search strategy and the inclusion (and exclusion) criteria | ||
- Assessment of validity of the findings (e.g. assessment of risk of bias) | ||
- Systematic presentation and synthesis of findings beyond those provided by single studies. | ||
Additional criteria | Reviews to be included only if with data and/or assessment of reliability and/or validity and/or clinical utility | Reliability: “the degree to which the measurement is free from measurement error” [23]. |
Validity: “the degree to which the [instrument] measures the construct(s) it purports to measure” [23]. | ||
Inclusion limited to English language | Clinical utility: “the usefulness of the measure for decision making”, i.e. to inform further action, such as the administration of analgesics [24]. |
Search methods for identification of reviews
Date/time | Database | # records retrieved (including duplicates) | # records retrieved (excluding duplicates) |
---|---|---|---|
12 March 2013 11:12 | MEDLINE (specifically: Ovid MEDLINE 1946 to February Week 4 2013) | 209 | 208 |
12 March 2013 11:22 | Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations March 11, 2013 | 0 | 0 |
12 March 2013 11:14 | All EBM Reviews - Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED | 68 | 67 |
12 March 2013 12:05 | Embase (1996 to 2013 Week 10) | 74 | 73 |
12 March 2013 12:22 | PsycINFO (1806 to March Week 1 2013) | 68 | 0 |
12 March 2013 13:40 | CINHAL | 78 | 0 |
12 March 2013 14:15 | The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Library - The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports | 6 | 0 |
12 March 2013 14:49 | Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database | 5 | 0 |
Total: | 508 | 441 (67 duplicates – i.e. 11 records retrieved in 2 or more databases) |
SPICE categories | Search terms* |
---|---|
Patient population: adults with dementia or cognitive impairment | 1. Dementia.mp. |
2. Alzheimer.mp | |
3. exp Dementia/ | |
4. exp Alzheimer Disease/ | |
5. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 | |
6. exp Cognition Disorders/ | |
7. Cognitive impairment.mp. | |
8. Cognitive function*.mp. | |
9. exp mental retardation/ | |
10. 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 | |
11. 5 or 10 | |
Intervention: pain assessment | 12. (Assess$ adj5 pain).mp. |
13. (Measur$ adj5 pain).mp. | |
14. (Scale$ adj5 pain).mp. | |
15. (Rating adj5 pain).mp. | |
16. exp Pain Measurement/ | |
17. exp Pain/di | |
18. *Pain Measurement/mt | |
19. exp *Pain Measurement/ | |
20. (Pain adj3 tool$).mp. | |
21. 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 | |
22. 11 and 21 | |
Limited to study design: reviews | 23. meta-analysis.mp. |
24. meta-analysis.pt. | |
25. review.pt. | |
26. search:.tw. | |
27. 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 | |
28. 22 and 27 |
Selection of reviews
Assessment of methodological quality of included reviews
Data extraction and management
Results
Review ID | Review | Notes on inclusion |
---|---|---|
[25] | Corbett A, Husebo B, Malcangio M, Staniland A, Cohen-Mansfield J, Aarsland D, et al. Assessment and treatment of pain in people with dementia. Nature Reviews Neurology. 2012; 8(5):264–74. | Meets inclusion criteria – data available on supplementary table |
[33] | Herr K, Bjoro K, Decker S. Tools for Assessment of Pain in Nonverbal Older Adults with Dementia: A State-of-the-Science Review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2006; 31(2):170–92. | Meets inclusion criteria and psychometric data provided |
[34] | Smith M. Pain assessment in nonverbal older adults with advanced dementia.Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. 2005; 41(3):99–113. | Meets inclusion criteria and psychometric data provided |
[35] | Qi NS, Brammer JD, Creedy DK. The psychometric properties, feasibility and utility of behavioural-observation methods in pain assessment of cognitively impaired elderly people in acute and long-term care: A systematic review. 2012. 2012; 10(17). | Meets inclusion criteria and psychometric data provided |
[36] | Juyoung P, Castellanos-Brown K, Belcher J. A Review of Observational Pain Scales in Nonverbal Elderly With Cognitive Impairments. Research on Social Work Practice. 2010; 20(6):651–64. | Meets inclusion criteria and psychometric data provided |
[30] | Schofield P, Clarke A, Faulkner M, Ryan T, Dunham M, Howarth A. Assessment of pain in adults with cognitive impairment: A review of the tools. International Journal on Disability and Human Development. 2005; 4(2):59–66. | |
[24] | van Herk R, van Dijk M, Baar FP, Tibboel D, de Wit R. Observation Scales for Pain Assessment in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairments or Communication Difficulties. Nursing Research. 2007; 56(1):34-43 | Meets inclusion criteria and psychometric data provided |
[21] | Zwakhalen SMG, Hamers JPH, Abu-Saad HH, Berger MPF. Pain in elderly people with severe dementia: a systematic review of behavioural pain assessment tools. BMC Geriatrics. 2006; 6(3). | Meets inclusion criteria and psychometric data provided |
Review ID | Review | Reason for exclusion |
---|---|---|
[37] | Thuathail AN, Welford C. Pain assessment tools for older people with cognitive impairment. Nursing Standard. 2011; 26(6):39–46. | Narrative review. The review covers several tools, with very little information of each. Comparison is difficult as no summary table is provided. |
[38] | Lord B. Paramedic assessment of pain in the cognitively impaired adult patient. BMC Emergency Medicine. 2009; 9:20. | Narrative review. No data on psychometric properties. |
[39] | While C, Jocelyn A. Observational pain assessment scales for people with dementia: a review. British Journal of Community Nursing. 2009; 14(10):438, 9–42. | A review of reviews. No data on psychometric properties of the tools. |
[40] | Rutledge DN, Donaldson NE, Pravikoff DS. Update. Pain assessment and documentation. Special populations of adults. Online Journal of Clinical Innovations. 2002; 5(2):1–49. | Broad review of pain in a variety of different patient groups - of which adults with cognitive impairment a subset. No data on psychometric properties of the tools to extract. |
[41] | Rutledge DR, Donaldson NE. Pain assessment and documentation. Part II - special populations of adults. Online Journal of Clinical Innovations. 1998; 1(6):1–29. | No data on psychometric properties of the tools. Review updated in [40]. |
[42] | Andrade DCd, Faria JWVd, Caramelli P, Alvarenga L, Galhardoni R, Siqueira SRD, et al. The assessment and management of pain in the demented and non-demented elderly patient. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria. 2011; 69(2B):387–94. | Narrative review, including physiology, assessment and management of pain. No data on psychometric properties of the tools. |
[43] | Scherder E, Oosterman J, Swaab D, Herr K, Ooms M, Ribbe M, et al. Recent developments in pain in dementia. BMJ. 2005; 330(7489):461–4. | Narrative review, no data on psychometric properties of tools. |
[44] | Lobbezoo F, Weijenberg RAF, Scherder EJA. Topical review: orofacial pain in dementia patients. A diagnostic challenge. Journal of Orofacial Pain. 2011; 25(1):6–14. | Narrative review. No data on psychometric properties of the tools. Focus: orofacial pain. |
[45] | Herr K, Bursch H, Ersek M, Miller LL, Swafford K. Use of pain-behavioral assessment tools in the nursing home: expert consensus recommendations for practice. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 2010; 36(3):18–29; | Expert reviewers were asked to rate each tool and provide a score; no data on psychometric properties of tools. The way in which the data are presented makes it unusable for our purposes. |
[46] | McAuliffe L, Nay R, O’Donnell M, Fetherstonhaugh D. Pain assessment in older people with dementia: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2009; 65(1):2–10. | A narrative review with no data on tools. Focus: barriers to successful pain assessment. |
[47] | Miller LL, Talerico KA. Pain in older adults. Annual Review of Nursing Research. 2002; 20:63–88. | Narrative review. No data on psychometric properties of the tools. |
[48] | Helfand M, Freeman M. Assessment and management of acute pain in adult medical inpatients: A systematic review. Pain Medicine. 2009; 10(7):1183–99. | Narrative review. No data on psychometric properties of the tools. |
[49] | Stolee P, Hillier LM, Esbaugh J, Bol N, McKellar L, Gauthier N. Instruments for the assessment of pain in older persons with cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2005;53(2):319–26. | 30 tools reviewed comparatively in overview tables. Reliability and validity data reported but in a form unusable for our purposes. |
Description of excluded reviews
Description of included reviews
Review ID | Number of included studies* | Search dates | Databases searched | Number of tools reviewed | Country of origin |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[25] | 18 | No data | PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE | 12 | UK |
[33] | No data | 1990 - July 2004 | MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Health, and Psychosocial Instruments + electronic database of the National Guideline Clearinghouse + pain and gerontological conferences + personal reference databases of the authors. | 10 | USA |
[34] | No data | No data | MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMB Reviews | 8 | USA |
[35] | 23 | 1990-2010 | CINAHAL, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycInfo, ScienceDirect, Wiley-Interscience, Mosby’s Nursing Consult, Web of Science, ProQuest + reference lists to identify additional studies. Unpublished studies and grey literature not included in review | 10 | Singapore and Australia |
[36] | 21 | 1990 - 2007 | MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, Social Sciences Abstracts, and Ageline | 11 | USA |
[30] | 9 | 1994-2004 | AHMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Psychlit, Ageinfo, Anchor housing, Index for thesis, Steinberg | 9 | UK |
[24] | No data | 1980-2005 | PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Cinahl, PiCarta | 13 | The Netherlands |
[21] | 29 | 1988 to January 2005 | MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL + screening citations and references + Unpublished manuscripts were collected by approaching colleagues working in the field of pain among the elderly + abstract books of the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th International Association for the Study of Pain World Congresses screened for relevant publications | 12 | Lebanon and Netherlands |
Name of tool | Number of reviews they appear in | Review IDs |
---|---|---|
Abbey pain scale | 7 | |
ADD Protocol | 5 | |
Behavior checklist | 2 | |
CNPI | 8 | |
Comfort checklist | 1 | [34] |
CPAT | 1 | [35] |
Doloplus-2 | 6 | |
DS-DAT | 6 | |
ECPA | 1 | [21] |
ECS | 1 | [21] |
EPCA-2 | 1 | [25] |
FACS | 1 | [24] |
FLACC | 1 | [33] |
Mahoney pain scale | 1 | [35] |
MOBID | 3 | |
NOPPAIN | 7 | |
Observational pain behaviour tool | 2 | |
PACSLAC | 7 | |
PADE | 7 | |
Pain assessment scale for use with cognitively impaired adults | 1 | [21] |
PAINAD | 8 | |
PAINE | 1 | [25] |
PATCOA | 2 | |
PBM | 1 | [24] |
PPI | 1 | [25] |
PPQ | 1 | [34] |
RaPID | 1 | [21] |
REPOS | 1 | [35] |
Quality of included reviews
Review ID | Q1 - Was an ‘a priori’ design provided? | Q2 - Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? | Q3 - Was a comprehensive literature search performed? | Q4 - Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? | Q5 - Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? | Q6 - Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? | Q7 - Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? | Q8 - Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? | Q9 - Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? | Q10 - Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? | Q11 - Was the conflict of interest stated? | Total score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[25] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
[33] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
[34] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
[35] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
[36] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
[30] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
[24] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
[21] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
Mean
| 4.875 |
Reviews’ findings – the pain assessment tools
Description of the tools
Settings where the tools were studied
Tools psychometric data
Reliability
Inter-rater reliability
Test-retest and intra-rater reliability
Internal consistency
Validity
Content validity
Concurrent and criterion validity
-
● CPAT was compared to DS-DAT (rs = 22, p = 0.076, rs = 0.25, p = 0.048)
-
● PAINAD compared to the DS-DAT (0.56-0.76)
-
● DS-DAT compared to the Pittsburgh Agitation Scale (0.51) and the Cohen-Mansfield Assessment Inventory (0.25)
-
● Doloplus 2 compared with the PAINAD (0.34) and PACSLAC (0.29-0.38)
-
● REPOS compared to PAINAD (0.61-0.75)
-
● FACS was compared to PBM (0.02-0.41)
-
● PAINE compared with PADE (r = 0.65)
-
● PADE compared to CMAI (0.30 – 0.42)
-
● PPI compared with the Memorial pain Subscale (0.67), Verbal scale (0.54), RAND Health Survey and Dartmouth COOP chart (0.72)
-
● RaPID compared to McGill pain scale (0.8-0.86).