Dataset Information

Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is evidence of under-detection and poor management of pain in patients with dementia, in both long-term and acute care. Accurate assessment of pain in people with dementia is challenging and pain assessment tools have received considerable attention over the years, with an increasing number of tools made available. Systematic reviews on the evidence of their validity and utility mostly compare different sets of tools. This review of systematic reviews analyses and summarises evidence concerning the psychometric properties and clinical utility of pain assessment tools in adults with dementia or cognitive impairment.

Methods

We searched for systematic reviews of pain assessment tools providing evidence of reliability, validity and clinical utility. Two reviewers independently assessed each review and extracted data from them, with a third reviewer mediating when consensus was not reached. Analysis of the data was carried out collaboratively. The reviews were synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach.

Results

We retrieved 441 potentially eligible reviews, 23 met the criteria for inclusion and 8 provided data for extraction. Each review evaluated between 8 and 13 tools, in aggregate providing evidence on a total of 28 tools. The quality of the reviews varied and the reporting often lacked sufficient methodological detail for quality assessment. The 28 tools appear to have been studied in a variety of settings and with varied types of patients. The reviews identified several methodological limitations across the original studies. The lack of a 'gold standard' significantly hinders the evaluation of tools' validity. Most importantly, the samples were small providing limited evidence for use of any of the tools across settings or populations.

Conclusions

There are a considerable number of pain assessment tools available for use with the elderly cognitive impaired population. However there is limited evidence about their reliability, validity and clinical utility. On the basis of this review no one tool can be recommended given the existing evidence.

SUBMITTER: Lichtner V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4289543 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

Lichtner Valentina V Dowding Dawn D Esterhuizen Philip P Closs S José SJ Long Andrew F AF Corbett Anne A Briggs Michelle M

BMC geriatrics 20141217

<h4>Background</h4>There is evidence of under-detection and poor management of pain in patients with dementia, in both long-term and acute care. Accurate assessment of pain in people with dementia is challenging and pain assessment tools have received considerable attention over the years, with an increasing number of tools made available. Systematic reviews on the evidence of their validity and utility mostly compare different sets of tools. This review of systematic reviews analyses and summar ...[more]

PMID: 25519741

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Pain is a common problem after stroke and is associated with poor outcomes. There is no consensus on the optimal method of pain assessment in stroke. A review of the properties of tools should allow an evidence based approach to assessment. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review published data on pain assessment tools used in stroke, with particular focus on classical test properties of: validity, reliability, feasibility, responsiveness. Methods: We searched multiple, cross-disciplinary databases for studies evaluating properties of pain assessment tools used in stroke. We assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. We used a modified harvest plot to visually represent psychometric properties across tests. Results: The search yielded 12 relevant articles, describing 10 different tools (n = 1,106 participants). There was substantial heterogeneity and an overall high risk of bias. The most commonly assessed property was validity (eight studies) and responsiveness the least (one study). There were no studies with a neuropathic or headache focus. Included tools were either scales or questionnaires. The most commonly assessed tool was the Faces Pain Scale (FPS) (6 studies). The limited number of papers precluded meaningful meta-analysis at level of pain assessment tool or pain syndrome. Even where common data were available across papers, results were conflicting e.g., two papers described FPS as feasible and two described the scale as having feasibility issues. Conclusion: Robust data on the properties of pain assessment tools for stroke are limited. Our review highlights specific areas where evidence is lacking and could guide further research to identify the best tool(s) for assessing post-stroke pain. Improving feasibility of assessment in stroke survivors should be a future research target. Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42019160679 Available online at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019160679.

Project description:BackgroundPain is a common reason for seeking out healthcare professionals and support services. However, certain populations, such as people with deafness, may encounter difficulties in effectively communicating their pain; on the other side, health care professionals may also encounter challenges to assess pain in this specific population.AimsTo describe (a) the state of the research in the field of pain assessment in individuals with deafness; (b) instruments validated; and (b) strategies facilitating the pain communication or assessment in this population.MethodsA systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were performed, searching Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and PsycInfo databases, from their initiation to July 2023. Primary and secondary studies, involving adults with deafness and investigating pain assessment and communication difficulties, facilitators, or barriers, were eligible. The included studies were assessed in their methodological quality with the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies tool; data extraction and the narrative synthesis was provided by two researchers.ResultsFive studies were included. Two were validation studies, while the remaining were a case report, a case study and a qualitative study. The interRAI Community Health Assessment and the Deafblind Supplement scale have been validated among people with deafness by reporting few psychometric properties; in contrast, instruments well established in the general population (e.g. Visual Analogue Scale) have been assessed in their usability and understandability among individuals with deafness, suggesting their limitations. Some strategies have been documented as facilitating pain communication and assessment: (a) ensuring inclusiveness (the presence of family members as mediators); (b) ensuring the preparedness of healthcare professionals (e.g. in sign language); and (c) making the environment friendly to this population (e.g. removing masks).ConclusionsThe research regarding pain in this population is in its infancy, resulting in limited evidence. In recommending more research capable of establishing the best pain assessment instrument, some strategies emerged for assessing pain in which the minimum standards of care required to offer to this vulnerable population should be considered.

Project description:IntroductionPain is a common symptom in people with dementia; untreated, it reduces quality of life and causes suffering. People with dementia living in nursing homes most often have dementia in moderate to severe stages. The cognitive impairment, including language and communication difficulties, challenges pain assessment. Since pain is a subjective experience, self-reporting is the gold standard of assessment methods. Healthcare professionals are advised to help people with dementia communicate about their pain. The proposed scoping review is the first step in the development of a systematic pain assessment model for people with dementia living in nursing homes. The scoping review aims to identify, categorise and summarise knowledge on how pain assessment processes in this population are described in the literature, with a special focus on self-reporting.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted following the six-stage framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, in addition to recent methodological developments. Systematic searches in CINAHL, Embase, Medline and PsycInfo will be conducted. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklists, and the scoping review will adhere to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The review will include research that concerns assessment of pain in people with dementia living in nursing homes. Studies will be evaluated for quality and ethical standards. The analysis process will follow Bradbury-Jones et al's PAGER framework. Patterns will be formed using thematic analysis. An overview of advances, gaps, evidence for practice and research recommendations associated with each pattern will be prepared. The research questions and results will be presented to and discussed in a reference group comprising nursing home residents, relatives, healthcare professionals and nursing home managers.Ethics and disseminationThe scoping review aims to collect and summarise data from available publications and does not require ethical approval. The final manuscript will be submitted to a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. REGISTRATION IN OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK: https://osf.io/8kaf5/.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Robust diagnosis of dementia requires an understanding of the accuracy of the available diagnostic tests. Informant questionnaires are frequently used to assess for dementia in clinical practice. Recent systematic reviews have sought to establish the diagnostic test accuracy of various dementia informant screening tools. However, most reviews to date have focused on a single diagnostic tool and this does not address which tool is 'best'. A key aim of the overview of systematic reviews is to present a disparate evidence base in a single, easy to access platform. METHODS:We will conduct an overview of systematic reviews in which we 'review the systematic reviews' of diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating informant questionnaires for dementia. As an overview of systematic reviews of test accuracy is a relatively novel approach, we will use this review to explore methods for visual representation of complex data, for highlighting evidence gaps and for indirect comparative analyses. We will create a list of informant tools by consulting with dementia experts. We will search 6 databases (EMBASE (OVID); Health and Psychosocial Instruments (OVID); Medline (OVID); CINAHL (EBSCO); PSYCHinfo (EBSCO) and the PROSPERO registry of review protocols) to identify systematic reviews that describe the diagnostic test accuracy of informant questionnaires for dementia. We will assess review quality using the AMSTAR-2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) and assess reporting quality using PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies) checklists. We will collate the identified reviews to create an 'evidence map' that highlights where evidence does and does not exist in relation to informant questionnaires. We will pool sensitivity and specificity data via meta-analysis to generate a diagnostic test accuracy summary statistic for each informant questionnaire. If data allow, we will perform a statistical comparison of the diagnostic test accuracy of each informant questionnaire using a network approach. DISCUSSION:Our overview of systematic reviews will provide a concise summary of the diagnostic test accuracy of informant tools and highlight areas where evidence is currently lacking in this regard. It will also apply network meta-analysis techniques to a new area.

Dataset Information

Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets