The use and reporting of neonatal pain scales: a systematic review of randomized trials
- PMID: 32826760
- PMCID: PMC7808360
- DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002046
The use and reporting of neonatal pain scales: a systematic review of randomized trials
Abstract
The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the specific type of pain or infant condition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting of neonatal pain scales in randomized trials. A systematic search up to March 2019 was performed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Luxid. Randomized and quasirandomized trials reporting neonatal pain scales were included. Screening of the studies for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by 2 researchers. Of 3718 trials found, 352 with 29,137 infants and 22 published pain scales were included. Most studies (92%) concerned procedural pain, where the most frequently used pain scales were the Premature Infant Pain Profile or Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (48%), followed by the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (23%). Although the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale is validated only for acute pain, it was also the second most used scale for ongoing and postoperative pain (21%). Only in a third of the trials, blinding for those performing the pain assessment was described. In 55 studies (16%), pain scales that were used lacked validation for the specific neonatal population or type of pain. Six validated pain scales were used in 90% of all trials, although not always in the correct population or type of pain. Depending on the type of pain and population of infants included in a study, appropriate scales should be selected. The inappropriate use raises serious concerns about research ethics and use of resources.
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.
Figures
References
-
- Abdulkader HM, Freer Y, Garry EM, Fleetwood-Walker SM, McIntosh N. Prematurity and neonatal noxious events exert lasting effects on infant pain behaviour. Early Hum Dev 2008;84:351–5. - PubMed
-
- Ahl H, Eriksson M, Norman E, Sjöström Strand A, Olsson E, Bruschettini M. Pain assessment instruments for use in clinical studies on newborn infants—a mapping of the evidence 2018. Available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018081412. Accessed May 23, 2020.
-
- Allegaert K, Tibboel D, Naulaers G, Tison D, De Jonge A, Van Dijk M, Vanhole C, Devlieger H. Systematic evaluation of pain in neonates: effect on the number of intravenous analgesics prescribed. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003;59:87–90. - PubMed
-
- Ambuel B, Hamlett KW, Marx CM, Blumer JL. Assessing distress in pediatric intensive care environments: the COMFORT scale. J Pediatr Psychol 1992;17:95–109. - PubMed
-
- Andersen RD, Bernklev T, Langius-Eklof A, Nakstad B, Jylli L. The COMFORT behavioural scale provides a useful assessment of sedation, pain and distress in toddlers undergoing minor elective surgery. Acta Paediatr 2015;104:904–9. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
