The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pain behaviors observed during six common procedures: Results from Thunder Project II*
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients frequently display behaviors during procedures that may be pain related. Clinicians often rely on the patient's demonstration of behaviors as a cue to presence of pain. The purpose of this study was to identify specific pain-related behaviors and factors that predict the degree of behavioral responses during the following procedures: turning, central venous catheter insertion, wound drain removal, wound care, tracheal suctioning, and femoral sheath removal. DESIGN: Prospective, descriptive study. SETTING: Multiple units in 169 hospitals in United States, Canada, England, and Australia. PATIENTS: A total of 5,957 adult patients who underwent one of the six procedures. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A 30-item behavior observation tool was used to note patients' behaviors before and during a procedure. By comparing behaviors exhibited before and during the procedure as well as behaviors in those with and without procedural pain (as noted on a 0-10 numeric rating scale), we identified specific procedural pain behaviors: grimacing, rigidity, wincing, shutting of eyes, verbalization, moaning, and clenching of fists. On average, there were significantly more behaviors exhibited by patients with vs. without procedural pain (3.5 vs. 1.8 behaviors; t = 38.3, df = 5072.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-1.8). Patients with procedural pain were at least three times more likely to have increased behavioral responses than patients without procedural pain. A simultaneous regression model determined that 33% of the variance in amount of pain behaviors exhibited during a procedure was explained by three factors: degree of procedural pain intensity, degree of procedural distress, and undergoing the turning procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the strong relationship between procedural pain and behavioral responses, clinicians can use behavioral responses of verbal and nonverbal patients to plan for, implement, and evaluate analgesic interventions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The validity and reliability of pain measures in adults with cancer
Jensen, M. P. (2003) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1054/jpai.2003.1 · Cited by 427 · cited 1×
“Construct (29, 30) and criterion (31) validity as well as reliability (31) of numeric rating scales have been previously established.”
Background
Cited by
Birnie, K. A., Noel, M., Chambers, C. T., Uman, L. S., & Parker, J. A. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005179.pub4 · Cited by 755
Uman, L. S., Chambers, C. T., McGrath, P. J., & Kisely, S. R. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005179.pub2 · Cited by 472
Slater, R., Cornelissen, L., Fabrizi, L., Patten, D., Yoxen, J., Worley, A., Boyd, S., Meek, J., & Fitzgerald, M. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61303-7 · Cited by 355
Metadata
- Authors
- Puntillo, K. A., Morris, A. B., Thompson, C. L., Stanik-Hutt, J., White, C. A., & Wild, L. R.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 421-427
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2001760655
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pain behaviors observed during six common procedures: Results from Thunder Project II*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000108875.35298.d2
- The paper
- Puntillo, K. A., Morris, A. B., Thompson, C. L., Stanik-Hutt, J., White, C. A., & Wild, L. R. (2004). Pain behaviors observed during six common procedures: Results from Thunder Project II*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000108875.35298.d2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.