Department of Child and Adolescent Health Services, Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway; Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Aug;73:93-101. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.05.010. Epub 2017 May 20.
Valid observational pain scales are needed to assess pain and ensure sufficient treatment of pain in children that lack the verbal ability to self-report pain. Published reviews attempt to synthesize results from primary studies validating these scales and based on the findings recommendations may be given, for example which pain scales are the most appropriate for use in different pediatric populations.
The aims of this review were to describe how systematic reviews have evaluated and recommended observational pain scales for use in children aged 0-18 years and appraise the evidence underlying these recommendations.
Systematic review of reviews.
The Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsychINFO were searched from inception to September 2016. Reference lists and gray literature were searched for additional studies.
Study selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently with a disagreement procedure in place. Methodological quality or study validity was measured using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist and risk of bias or internal validity was measured using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: registration number CRD42016035264.
Twelve reviews met the inclusion criteria. Together; they included 65 different observational pain scales for use in children, of which 28 were recommended at least once. Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability/revised version of Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability, COMFORT/COMFORT behavioral scale and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale were evaluated and recommended most frequently. Few of the included reviews assessed the methodological quality of the studies included in the review. The narrative analysis consisted mostly of a reiteration of the results from the primary studies. In general, more recent reviews showed a lower risk of bias than older ones.
Included reviews exhibited low quality of evidence; thus, their recommendations regarding pain scales for use in clinical practice or research with children that lack the verbal ability to self-report pain should be interpreted with caution.
需要有效的观察性疼痛量表来评估疼痛,并确保对缺乏自我报告疼痛能力的儿童进行充分的疼痛治疗。已发表的综述试图综合这些量表的原始研究结果,并根据研究结果提出建议,例如,哪些疼痛量表最适合用于不同的儿科人群。
本综述的目的是描述系统评价如何评估和推荐用于 0-18 岁儿童的观察性疼痛量表,并评估这些推荐的证据基础。
系统评价综述。
从创建到 2016 年 9 月,在 Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed/MEDLINE、CINAHL、Web of Science 和 PsychINFO 中进行了检索。还检索了参考文献列表和灰色文献,以寻找其他研究。
两名评审员独立进行研究选择和数据提取,并制定了不一致处理程序。使用评估多个系统评价清单来衡量方法学质量或研究有效性,使用系统评价中的偏倚风险工具来衡量偏倚风险或内部有效性。该综述方案已在 PROSPERO 中注册:注册号 CRD42016035264。
有 12 篇综述符合纳入标准。它们总共包括 65 种不同的用于儿童的观察性疼痛量表,其中 28 种量表至少被推荐过一次。面部、腿部、活动、哭泣、舒适度/舒适度行为量表和东安大略儿童医院疼痛量表的修订版被评估和推荐的频率最高。纳入的综述中很少有评估纳入综述的研究的方法学质量。叙述性分析主要是对原始研究结果的重复。一般来说,较新的综述比较旧的综述显示出较低的偏倚风险。
纳入的综述显示证据质量低;因此,对于缺乏自我报告疼痛能力的儿童在临床实践或研究中使用疼痛量表的建议应谨慎解读。