Roghieh Nazari1, Erika Sivarjan Froelicher2, Hamid Sharif Nia1, Fatemeh Hajihosseini1, Noushin Mousazadeh1. 1. Amol Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran. 2. Department of Physiological Nursing, School of Nursing and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Abstract
Background: Pain assessment in unconscious patients is a major challenge for healthcare providers. This study aims to compare the diagnostic value of the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) and the behavioral pain scale (BPS) for pain assessment among unconscious patients. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2019. Forty-five unconscious patients were selected randomly from four general intensive care units (ICUs) in the north of Iran. The discriminant validity of CPOT and BPS were evaluated for pain during a nociceptive and a nonnociceptive procedure. For reliability assessment, interrater agreement was obtained using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient and weighted kappa coefficient. Results: Patients who had been hospitalized in ICU due to surgery or trauma (57.70%) or medical problems (42.30%) were studied. During the nociceptive procedure, the mean scores of CPOT and BPS and all their dimensions, except for the compliance with ventilator dimension, were significantly greater than the nonnociceptive procedure (p <0.05) although the effect size of both instruments was small (0.32 vs 0.18). The Lin's concordance correlation coefficient in nonnociceptive and nociceptive procedures was respectively 0.67 and 0.62 for CPOT and 0.74 and 0.88 for BPS. Conclusion: CPOT and BPS have acceptable discriminant validity in differentiating nonnociceptive and nociceptive procedural pain although the effect size of CPOT is larger than that of BPS. Although both instruments have low reliability, the reliability of BPS is better. How to cite this article: Nazari R, Froelicher ES, Nia HS, Hajihosseini F, Mousazadeh N. Diagnostic Values of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and the Behavioral Pain Scale for Pain Assessment among Unconscious Patients: A Comparative Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):472-476.
Background: Pain assessment in unconscious patients is a major challenge for healthcare providers. This study aims to compare the diagnostic value of the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) and the behavioral pain scale (BPS) for pain assessment among unconscious patients. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2019. Forty-five unconscious patients were selected randomly from four general intensive care units (ICUs) in the north of Iran. The discriminant validity of CPOT and BPS were evaluated for pain during a nociceptive and a nonnociceptive procedure. For reliability assessment, interrater agreement was obtained using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient and weighted kappa coefficient. Results: Patients who had been hospitalized in ICU due to surgery or trauma (57.70%) or medical problems (42.30%) were studied. During the nociceptive procedure, the mean scores of CPOT and BPS and all their dimensions, except for the compliance with ventilator dimension, were significantly greater than the nonnociceptive procedure (p <0.05) although the effect size of both instruments was small (0.32 vs 0.18). The Lin's concordance correlation coefficient in nonnociceptive and nociceptive procedures was respectively 0.67 and 0.62 for CPOT and 0.74 and 0.88 for BPS. Conclusion: CPOT and BPS have acceptable discriminant validity in differentiating nonnociceptive and nociceptive procedural pain although the effect size of CPOT is larger than that of BPS. Although both instruments have low reliability, the reliability of BPS is better. How to cite this article: Nazari R, Froelicher ES, Nia HS, Hajihosseini F, Mousazadeh N. Diagnostic Values of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and the Behavioral Pain Scale for Pain Assessment among Unconscious Patients: A Comparative Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):472-476.
Authors: John W Devlin; Yoanna Skrobik; Céline Gélinas; Dale M Needham; Arjen J C Slooter; Pratik P Pandharipande; Paula L Watson; Gerald L Weinhouse; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Michele C Balas; Mark van den Boogaard; Karen J Bosma; Nathaniel E Brummel; Gerald Chanques; Linda Denehy; Xavier Drouot; Gilles L Fraser; Jocelyn E Harris; Aaron M Joffe; Michelle E Kho; John P Kress; Julie A Lanphere; Sharon McKinley; Karin J Neufeld; Margaret A Pisani; Jean-Francois Payen; Brenda T Pun; Kathleen A Puntillo; Richard R Riker; Bryce R H Robinson; Yahya Shehabi; Paul M Szumita; Chris Winkelman; John E Centofanti; Carrie Price; Sina Nikayin; Cheryl J Misak; Pamela D Flood; Ken Kiedrowski; Waleed Alhazzani Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Marianne Jensen Hjermstad; Peter M Fayers; Dagny F Haugen; Augusto Caraceni; Geoffrey W Hanks; Jon H Loge; Robin Fainsinger; Nina Aass; Stein Kaasa Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Juliana Barr; Gilles L Fraser; Kathleen Puntillo; E Wesley Ely; Céline Gélinas; Joseph F Dasta; Judy E Davidson; John W Devlin; John P Kress; Aaron M Joffe; Douglas B Coursin; Daniel L Herr; Avery Tung; Bryce R H Robinson; Dorrie K Fontaine; Michael A Ramsay; Richard R Riker; Curtis N Sessler; Brenda Pun; Yoanna Skrobik; Roman Jaeschke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.598