Cited by 571Pain Management and Opioid UseGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

Efficacy of treating pain to reduce behavioural disturbances in residents of nursing homes with dementia: cluster randomised clinical trial

Open access
Husebo, B. S., Ballard, C., Sandvik, R., Nilsen, O. B., Aarsland, D.·2011·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a systematic approach to the treatment of pain can reduce agitation in people with moderate to severe dementia living in nursing homes. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 60 clusters (single independent nursing home units) in 18 nursing homes within five municipalities of western Norway. PARTICIPANTS: 352 residents with moderate to severe dementia and clinically significant behavioural disturbances randomised to a stepwise protocol for the treatment of pain for eight weeks with additional follow-up four weeks after the end of treatment (33 clusters; n = 175) or to usual treatment (control, 27 clusters; n = 177). INTERVENTION: Participants in the intervention group received individual daily treatment of pain for eight weeks according to the stepwise protocol, with paracetamol (acetaminophen), morphine, buprenorphine transdermal patch, or pregabaline. The control group received usual treatment and care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was agitation (scores on Cohen-Mansfield agitation inventory). Secondary outcome measures were aggression (scores on neuropsychiatric inventory-nursing home version), pain (scores on mobilisation-observation-behaviour-intensity-dementia-2), activities of daily living, and cognition (mini-mental state examination). RESULTS: Agitation was significantly reduced in the intervention group compared with control group after eight weeks (repeated measures analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline score, P < 0.001): the average reduction in scores for agitation was 17% (treatment effect estimate -7.0, 95% confidence interval -3.7 to -10.3). Treatment of pain was also significantly beneficial for the overall severity of neuropsychiatric symptoms (-9.0, -5.5 to -12.6) and pain (-1.3, -0.8 to -1.7), but the groups did not differ significantly for activities of daily living or cognition. CONCLUSION: A systematic approach to the management of pain significantly reduced agitation in residents of nursing homes with moderate to severe dementia. Effective management of pain can play an important part in the treatment of agitation and could reduce the number of unnecessary prescriptions for psychotropic drugs in this population. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01021696 and Norwegian Medicines Agency EudraCTnr 2008-007490-20.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.d4065

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Only one activity study measured agitation after the intervention finished, and it did not show effects at 1-week and 4-week follow-up.

    “Only one study measured agitation after the intervention finished, and did not show effects at 1-week and 4-week follow-up. 24”

    From Non-pharmacological interventions for agitation in dementia: systematic review of randomised controlled trials (2014) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Methods (Primary and secondary outcome measures) specify agitation measurement four weeks after treatment ended, but no one-week follow-up. Results (Outcome, table 3) show no statistically significant intervention effect at that four-week follow-up (P=0.058). This was a pain-treatment trial, not an activity study, and it cannot establish that only one study measured post-intervention agitation. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Effective pain management has an important role and can reduce unnecessary psychotropic prescriptions.

    “Effective pain management also has an important role and can reduce unnecessary psychotropic prescriptions.48”
  • One high-quality RCT found no additional effect on agitation of individualising activities according to functional level and interest, although two lower-quality RCTs did.

    “One high-quality RCT found no additional effect on agitation of individualising activities according to functional level and interest, 24 although two lower-quality RCTs did. 25,26”

    From Non-pharmacological interventions for agitation in dementia: systematic review of randomised controlled trials (2014) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Methods and Results (pages not provided) describe a trial of stepwise pain treatment that reduced agitation, not a trial of activities individualised by functional level and interest. The Discussion mentions a separate personalised non-drug intervention but does not report the claimed null result for individualised activities. Searches for the claim’s wording and for tailored activities found no supporting passage in this paper. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Husebo, B. S., Ballard, C., Sandvik, R., Nilsen, O. B., & Aarsland, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Bergen (NO)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Stavanger University Hospital (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Ballard, C.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-07-15
Volume
343
Issue
jul15 1
Pages
d4065-d4065
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2093639349
Cited by
571
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 37
FWCI
51.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universitetet i Bergen (09/1568, 189439)
  • Norges Forskningsråd (189439)
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 management, dementia, agitation, behavioral problems, nursing home residents, paracetamol, morphine, pregabalin, neuropsychiatric symptoms, psychotropic prescribing, activities of daily living, cognition
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Analgesics, Analysis of Variance, Clinical Protocols, Dementia, Female, Homes for the Aged, Humans, Male, Nursing Homes, Pain, Psychomotor Agitation, Cluster Analysis, 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