CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,108Pain Management and Opioid UseAnesthesia and Pain ManagementMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of pain

Open access
Breivik, H., Borchgrevink, P.C., Allen, S.M., Rosseland, L.A., Romundstad, L., Breivik Hals, E.K., Kvarstein, G., Stubhaug, A.·2008·British Journal of Anaesthesia
DOI 10.1093/bja/aen103
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Unlabelled Valid and reliable assessment of pain is essential for both clinical trials and effective pain management. The nature of pain makes objective measurement impossible. Acute pain can be reliably assessed, both at rest (important for comfort) and during movement (important for function and risk of postoperative complications), with one-dimensional tools such as numeric rating scales or visual analogue scales. Both these are more powerful in detecting changes in pain intensity than a verbal categorical rating scale. In acute pain trials, assessment of baseline pain must ensure sufficient pain intensity for the trial to detect meaningful treatment effects. Chronic pain assessment and its impact on physical, emotional, and social functions require multidimensional qualitative tools and health-related quality of life instruments. Several disease- and patient-specific functional scales are useful, such as the Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities for osteoarthritis, and several neuropathic pain screening tools. The Initiative on Methods Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials recommendations for outcome measurements of chronic pain trials are also useful for routine assessment. Cancer pain assessment is complicated by a number of other bodily and mental symptoms such as fatigue and depression, all affecting quality of life. It is noteworthy that quality of life reported by chronic pain patients can be as much affected as that of terminal cancer patients. Any assessment of pain must take into account other factors, such as cognitive impairment or dementia, and assessment tools validated in the specific patient groups being studied.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bja/aen103

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 50 references

3 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Eder, 2001, How well do physicians document pain in the emergency department?, Acad Emerg Med, 8, 427
  2. Fredheim, 2008, Norwegian pain society minimum questionnaire for pain patients (NOSF-MISS), Tids Nor Legeforen, 128
  3. Lefebre-Chapiro, 2001, The Doloplus 2 scale—evaluating pain in the elderly, Eur J Pall Care, 8, 191
  4. Straw, 2000, Situp, take notice, Health Serv J, 5704, 24

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Breivik, H., Borchgrevink, P. C., Allen, S. M., Rosseland, L. A., Romundstad, L., Breivik Hals, E. K., Kvarstein, G., & Stubhaug, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Breivik, H.
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
101
Issue
1
Pages
17-24
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/bja/aen103
OpenAlex
W2138261897
Cited by
2,108
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 107 · 2025: 190 · 2024: 163 · 2023: 187 · 2022: 158 · 2021: 174 · 2020: 165 · 2019: 146 · 2018: 127 · 2017: 113 · 2016: 112 · 2015: 118 · 2014: 88 · 2013: 76 · 2012: 53
FWCI
7.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
pain assessment, acute pain, chronic pain, cancer pain, health-related quality of life, numerical rating scale, visual analogue scale, functional scales, neuropathic pain screening, cognitive impairment, dementia
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Analgesics, Chronic Disease, Humans, Movement, Neoplasms, Pain, Pain Measurement, Postoperative Pain, Treatment Outcome

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