The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Systematic Review of Faces Scales for the Self-report of Pain Intensity in Children
Abstract
CONTEXT: Numerous faces scales have been developed for the measurement of pain intensity in children. It remains unclear whether any one of the faces scales is better for a particular purpose with regard to validity, reliability, feasibility, and preference. OBJECTIVES: To summarize and systematically review faces pain scales most commonly used to obtain self-report of pain intensity in children for evaluation of reliability and validity and to compare the scales for preference and utility. METHODS: Five major electronic databases were systematically searched for studies that used a faces scale for the self-report measurement of pain intensity in children. Fourteen faces pain scales were identified, of which 4 have undergone extensive psychometric testing: Faces Pain Scale (FPS) (scored 0–6); Faces Pain Scale–Revised (FPS-R) (0–10); Oucher pain scale (0–10); and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPRS) (0–10). These 4 scales were included in the review. Studies were classified by using psychometric criteria, including construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness, that were established a priori. RESULTS: From a total of 276 articles retrieved, 182 were screened for psychometric evaluation, and 127 were included. All 4 faces pain scales were found to be adequately supported by psychometric data. When given a choice between faces scales, children preferred the WBFPRS. Confounding of pain intensity with affect caused by use of smiling and crying anchor faces is a disadvantage of the WBFPRS. CONCLUSIONS: For clinical use, we found no grounds to switch from 1 faces scale to another when 1 of the scales is in use. For research use, the FPS-R has been recommended on the basis of utility and psychometric features. Data are sparse for children below the age of 5 years, and future research should focus on simplified measures, instructions, and anchors for these younger children.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
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
The validity of pain intensity measures: what do the NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R measure?
Thong, I. S. K., Jensen, M. P., Miró, J., & Tan, G. (2018) · Scandinavian Journal of Pain · doi:10.1515/sjpain-2018-0012 · Cited by 652
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
Birnie, K. A., Noel, M., Parker, J. A., Chambers, C. T., Uman, L. S., Kisely, S. R., & McGrath, P. J. (2014) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsu029 · Cited by 292
Gold, J. I., SooHoo, M., Laikin, A. M., Lane, A. S., & Klein, M. J. (2021) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22569 · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Tomlinson, D., von Baeyer, C. L., Stinson, J. N., & Sung, L.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2010-11-01
- Volume
- 126
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e1168-e1198
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2126047189
- Cited by
- 571
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.59
- 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
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.