Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun 19;23(1):307.
doi: 10.1186/s12887-023-04099-7.

Pain assessment tools for use in infants: a meta-review

Diana Arabiat  1   2 , Evalotte Mörelius  3   4 , Kreshnik Hoti  5 , Jeffery Hughes  6
Affiliations

Pain assessment tools for use in infants: a meta-review

Diana Arabiat et al. BMC Pediatr. .

Abstract

Background: Identifying pain in infants is challenging due to their inability to self-report pain, therefore the availability of valid and reliable means of assessing pain is critical.

Objective: This meta-review sought to identify evidence that could guide the selection of appropriate tools in this vulnerable population.

Methods: We searched Scopus, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, MIDRIS, EMCare and Google Scholar for eligible systematic reviews. Eligible reviews documented psychometric properties of available observational tools used to assess pain in infants.

Results: A total of 516 reviews were identified of which 11 met our inclusion criteria. We identified 36 pain assessment tools (evaluated in 11 reviews) of which seven were reported in at least three reviews. The level of evidence reported on the psychometric properties of pain assessment tools varied widely ranging from low to good reliability and validity, whilst there are limited data on usability and clinical utility.

Conclusions: Currently, no observer administered pain assessment tool can be recommended as the gold standard due to limited availability and quality of the evidence that supports their validity, reliability and clinical utility. This meta-review attempts to collate the available evidence to assist clinicians to decide on what is the most appropriate tool to use in their clinical practice setting. It is important that researchers adopt a standard approach to evaluating the psychometric properties of pain assessment tools and evaluations of the clinical utility in order that the highest level of evidence can be used to guide tool selection.

Keywords: Clinical utility; Infants; Observational pain assessment tools; Reliability; Validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JDH was employed by PainChek Ltd as its Chief Scientific Officer in February 2020, previous to that JDH worked under a research contract between Curtin University and PainChek Ltd on the development and evaluation of PainChek’s Adult and Infant apps (formerly known as EPAT Technologies).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram of records identified in the search of eligible reviews
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Miller-Hoover SR. Using Valid and Reliable Tools for Pain and Sedation Assessment in Pediatric Patients. Crit Care Nur. 2019;39(3):59–66. doi: 10.4037/ccn2019713. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Olsson E, Ahl H, Bengtsson K, Vejayaram DN, Norman E, Bruschettini M. Eriksson M The use and reporting of neonatal pain scales: a systematic review of randomized trials. Pain. 2021;162(2):353. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002046. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zamzmi G, Kasturi R, Goldgof D, Zhi R, Ashmeade T, Sun Y. A review of automated pain assessment in infants: features, classification tasks, and databases. IEEE Rev in Biomed Eng. 2017;11:77–96. doi: 10.1109/RBME.2017.2777907. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mathew PJ, Mathew JL. Assessment and management of pain in infants. Postgrad Med J. 2013;79(934):438–443. doi: 10.1136/pmj.79.934.438. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Talbot K, Madden VJ, Jones SL, Moseley GL. The sensory and affective components of pain: are they differentially modifiable dimensions or inseparable aspects of a unitary experience? A systematic review. Brit J Anaesth. 2019;123(2):e263–e272. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.033. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types