Cited by 62Pain Management and Opioid UseGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

The utility of pain assessment for analgesic use in persons with dementia

Cohen-Mansfield, Jiska, Lipson, Steven·2008·Pain

Abstract

Ameliorating pain symptoms in persons with severe dementia is difficult due to the inherent problems of pain assessment and communication with this population. This study aims to examine the utility of nine pain assessments in identifying pain and documenting responsiveness to pain medication in 121 nursing home residents with dementia. The assessments included self-report, informant ratings by nursing staff, and direct observations. This was an open medication study, with comparison groups of persons with dementia. Those evaluated as having pain were included in the pain medication protocol. Three comparison groups were utilized: those not considered in pain at baseline, those in pain at baseline for whom caregivers refused to follow the pain medication protocol, and a subset of those not in pain at baseline who were followed for a period of time similar in length to the treatment group. Informant ratings were the assessments most likely to detect pain and direct observations were least likely to do so. Both self-report and informant ratings showed a significantly greater decrease in pain in the treatment group relative to the comparison groups. All participants who followed the pain protocol reached a pain free stage by the study criteria. A limitation of the study was the reduced endpoint number due to family or physician resistance to following treatment recommendations. The results present a methodology that caregivers can use to increase the detection of pain in persons…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2007.03.023

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The PAINE is superior to other assessments for detecting pain in this population.

    “For this reason, the PAINE data was used for the estimate rather than the reports of RAs or NAs, as this assessment has been shown to be superior to others for the detection of pain in this population (Cohen-Mansfield and Lipson, 2008).”

    From Which unmet needs contribute to behavior problems in persons with advanced dementia? (2015) · cites this paper as Cohen-Mansfield and Lipson, 2008

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 62

Authors
Cohen-Mansfield, J., & Lipson, S.
Venue
Pain
Published
2008-01
Volume
134
Issue
1
Pages
16-23
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085705622
Cited by
62
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
pain assessment, dementia, analgesic use, nursing home residents, self-report, informant ratings, direct observation, pain detection, quality of life
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Analgesics, Dementia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Single-Blind Method

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review