↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the Dutch version of the critical‐care pain observation tool

Overview of attention for article published in Nursing in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of the Dutch version of the critical‐care pain observation tool
Published in
Nursing in Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1111/nicc.12225
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willemke Stilma, Saskia Rijkenberg, Hilde M Feijen, Jolanda M Maaskant, Henrik Endeman

Abstract

Systematic assessment of pain is necessary for adequate treatment of pain. Patient self-reported pain is a superior assessment but is of limited use for intubated patients in the intensive care unit. For these patients, the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) has been developed. To perform a validation of the Dutch CPOT. Cross-sectional observational study. The Dutch translation of the CPOT was used. Clinimetric characteristics were analysed in a cross-sectional design. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was tested by collecting CPOT scores in patients at rest and during turning. Inter-rater reliability was tested by collecting CPOT scores simultaneously by two different nurses who were blinded to each other's scores. Criterion validity (area under the curve, sensitivity and specificity) of the Dutch CPOT (index test) was analysed using patient self-reported pain (reference test). Cronbach's alpha was 0.56. During rest, the inter-rater reliability was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20-0.53). During turning, the inter-rater reliability was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.42-0.68; area under the curve = 0.65 [95% CI 0.57-0.73]). At a threshold CPOT score of 2, the sensitivity and specificity were 39% and 85%, respectively. The Dutch CPOT is available for pain assessment in intubated patients unable to self-report. Inter-rater reliability is moderate. At the threshold, a CPOT score of 2, the sensitivity was 39% and the specificity of 85%. The CPOT is easy to use for systematic assessment of pain. Additional information about the threshold is valuable for use in daily practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 33%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,922,591
of 15,840,568 outputs
Outputs from Nursing in Critical Care
#149
of 363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,203
of 370,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nursing in Critical Care
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,840,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.