<h4>Abstract</h4>The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the specific type of pain or infant condition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting of neonatal pain scales in randomized trials. A systematic search up to March 2019 was performed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Luxid. Randomized and quasirandomized trials reporting neonatal pain scales were included. Screening of the studies for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by 2 researchers. Of 3718 trials found, 352 with 29,137 infants and 22 published pain scales were included. Most studies (92%) concerned procedural pain, where the most frequently used pain scales were the Premature Infant Pain Profile or Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (48%), followed by the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (23%). Although the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale is validated only for acute pain, it was also the second most used scale for ongoing and postoperative pain (21%). Only in a third of the trials, blinding for those performing the pain assessment was described. In 55 studies (16%), pain scales that were used lacked validation for the specific neonatal population or type of pain. Six validated pain scales were used in 90% of all trials, although not always in the correct population or type of pain. Depending on the type of pain and population of infants included in a study, appropriate scales should be selected. The inappropriate use raises serious concerns about research ethics and use of resources.

<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically review the instruments used to assess behavior, stress, and/or pain in preterm newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and verify the validity and reliability of these instruments.<h4>Data sources</h4>Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS), and EBSCOhost Research Platform. 12,295 records were found.<h4>Review/analysis methods</h4>37 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria.  The COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess the quality assessment and measurement properties.<h4>Results</h4>We identified 25 scales that assessed behavior, pain, and/or stress in preterm newborns. The Behavioral Indicators of Infant Pain (BIPP), Crying, Requires Oxygen, Increased Vital Signs, Expression, Sleeplessness (CRIES), Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP), and Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) had scored "very good" in quality data. The PIPP and PIPP-R scales received the "very good" classification in validity assessment. The Evaluation Enfant Douleur (EVENDOL), Children's and Infants Postoperative Pain Scale (CHIPPS), PIPP-R, Neonatal Pain Agitation and Sedation Scale (N-PASS), Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates (BPSN), Faceless Acute Neonatal Pain Scale (FANS), BIIP, and Pain Assessment Scale for Preterm Infants (PASPI) obtained an assessment classified as excellent on reliability, both for inter-rater reliability and internal consistency, and the BPSN demonstrated a very strong value to intra-rater reliability.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Considering the assessments of inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and quality of scales by COSMIN, the BIPP, and PIPP-R, were the scales considered appropriate.

BACKGROUND Six to nine per cent of all newborn infants require admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) due to either illness or prematurity. During their stay, these infants are often subjected to many painful procedures that can cause negative long-term consequences. To reduce the negative effects of pain exposure and ensure optimal and safe pain treatment, accurate assessment of pain is necessary. To achieve this, clinicians are dependent on the use of reliable, objective, and standardised clinical rating scales of pain, henceforth referred to as 'rating scales'. Numerous rating scales have been published; however, discrepancies in validity limit their overall applicability in clinical practice and research. Such limitations may lead to an over- or underestimation of pain, resulting in unnecessary sedation or inadequately treated pain, potentially jeopardising infant safety through treatment side effects, including withdrawal symptoms or prolonged discomfort. To date, the majority of rating scales have been developed to assess procedural pain, whilst fewer scales for prolonged pain are available. Premature infants further complicate matters, as they often have a reduced ability to display robust pain behaviour due to their immaturity. Research has also shown that the use of rating scales in clinical practice is suboptimal, due to both inadequate and infrequent implementation alongside inappropriate choice of scale for the specific pain, population, or setting under evaluation. Despite numerous studies investigating the burden of pain in newborn infants, little work has been done to summarise the current evidence on the appropriateness of rating scales for specific types of pain or infant conditions. This has likely been limited by the subjectivity of pain assessment and further complication of assessing such a non-verbal and immature patient population. The immense burden of neonatal pain worldwide has also led to the development of numerous rating scales in various languages, further hindering evidence summation. OBJECTIVES To systematically review the literature to compile and describe the development, content, and measurement properties of clinical rating scales for the assessment of pain in newborn infants. SEARCH METHODS An Information Specialist systematically searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. The latest update search is current to July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all study designs that involved the development or testing of a rating scale for assessing pain in newborn infants. We included preterm (born before week 37) and term (born at week 37 or beyond) infants undergoing pain assessment for any medical indication. We also included studies that included healthcare professionals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We evaluated clinical rating scales assessing pain in newborn infants using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology evaluating content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, and cross-cultural validation. We used a modified GRADE approach to assess risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and indirectness. MAIN RESULTS We included 79 studies involving a total of 7197 infants, 326 nurses, and 12 physicians. Twenty-seven clinical rating scales were used in 26 countries, with 14 studies evaluating preterm infants, 11 on term infants, 46 on both preterm and term infants, four solely on medical staff, and four on preterm and/or term infants plus medical staff. Following the COSMIN checklist, we found all rating scales to be of very low-certainty evidence, raising concerns regarding their validity, reliability, and applicability in this vulnerable population across diverse clinical settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Clinical staff should be vigilant when applying the currently available neonatal rating scales. Further development of rating scale content

The development of a functional rating scale to measure the treatment outcome of chronic spinal patients. A Functional Rating Scale (FRS) was developed to quantify behavioral changes in chronic pain patients relative to six subcategories. The aim was to demonstrate its validity, test the instrument's reliability, and determine its value in measuring treatment outcome. Five sample populations were examined: a test group of 58 pain clinic patients; a medical control group comprising 29 outpatients with arthritis; and a three-part, healthy control group of 98 subjects. The validation and reliability of the scale were affirmed by clearly differentiating healthy from infirm subjects and through a test-retest check of the four control groups. The difference between means of the test group, before and after treatment, was of high statistical significance, which indicates the practical value of the FRS in measuring relative changes. Published in Spine (1986)

Cannabis and cannabinoid drugs are widely used to treat disease or alleviate symptoms, but their efficacy for specific indications is not clear. To conduct a systematic review of the benefits and adverse events (AEs) of cannabinoids. Twenty-eight databases from inception to April 2015. Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, activities of daily living, quality of life, global impression of change, and AEs. A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.46 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, -0.36 [95% CI, -0.69 to -0.05]; 7 trials). There was an increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination. There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

disease has progressed can be measured using the unified Huntington's disease rating scale, which provides an overall rating system based on motor, behavioral Huntington's disease (HD), also known as Huntington's chorea, is a fatal neurodegenerative disease that is usually inherited. It typically presents as a triad of progressive psychiatric, cognitive, and motor symptoms. The earliest symptoms are often subtle problems with mood or mental/psychiatric abilities, which precede the motor symptoms for many people. The definitive physical symptoms, includi A physical examination, sometimes combined with a psychological examination, can determine whether the onset of the disease has begun. Excessive unintentional movements of any part of the body are often the reason for seeking medical consultation. If these are abrupt and have random timing and distribution, they suggest a diagnosis of HD. Cognitive or behavioral symptoms are rarely the first symptoms diagnosed; they are usually only recognized in hindsight or when they develop further. How far the disease has progressed can be measured using the unified Huntington's disease rating scale, which provides an overall rating system based on motor, behavioral, cognitive, and functional assessments. Medical imaging, such as a CT scan or MRI scan, can show atrophy of the caudate nuclei early in the disease, as seen in the illustration to the right, but these changes are not, by themselves, diagnostic of HD. Cerebral atrophy can be seen in the advanced stages of the disease. Functional neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission…

Pain conditions are the leading cause of disability among active-duty service members. Given the significant implications for force readiness and service member well-being, the Military Health System (MHS) has made it a strategic priority to provide service members with the highest-quality treatment for pain conditions. RAND researchers assessed MHS outpatient care for acute and chronic pain, including opioid prescribing. The assessment involved developing a set of 14 quality measures designed to assess aspects of outpatient care for pain, including care associated with dental and ambulatory p

neurological examination. How much tinnitus interferes with a person's life may be quantified with questionnaires. If certain problems are found, medical imaging Tinnitus is a condition when a person hears a ringing sound or a different variety of sounds when no corresponding external sound is present and that other people cannot hear. The word tinnitus comes from the Latin tinnire, "to ring". Tinnitus may be associated with hearing loss or decreased comprehension of speech in noisy environments. It is common, affecting about 10–15% of people. Most tolerat Tinnitu…

Numerical pain rating scales Different dimensions such as severity, frequency and duration can be assessed … individual patients. Visual analogue scales These scales can be used to assess the severity of pain. … numerical rating scale, the verbal rating scale and the Oucher scale. The numerical rating scale is a