ArticleJMIR mental health2025
Pain Cues in People With Dementia: Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Individuals with dementia, especially those in later stages, have difficulties with verbally reporting their experience of pain. This results in both underassessment and undertreatment of pain, signaling the need for better pain recognition in persons with dementia. A promising form of pain assessment is digital monitoring, which can concurrently and more objectively detect and use numerous relevant pain cues. Objective: This review aimed to identify observable cues of pain, which could be used for digital pain monitoring. A total of 2 research questions (RQs) were formed as we set out to examine which digital cues offered a valid insight into pain in people with dementia (RQ1) and identify how these cues were originally measured (RQ2). Methods: A standard methodological approach for scoping reviews was used. Relevant research papers were chosen based on SCOPUS and Web of Science databases, and relevant data on pain cues were extracted from all papers that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The gathered data were analyzed using a thematic analysis, which involved categorizing the observable cues into higher-order categories. Results: Of the 3705 publications identified in the search, 34 satisfied the inclusion criteria and were closely examined. Addressing RQ1, we identified 7 categories of behavioral and physiological cues associated with pain, most frequently facial expressions (20/34, 59%) and body movements or expressions (15/34, 44%). Several subcategories for each main category of pain cues were also identified, each involving between 1 and 28 relevant specific pain cues. Addressing RQ2, 29/34 (85%) studies assessed pain cues via human observation only, while 5/34 (15%) combined human observation with either facial recognition software, PainChek app, or computer vision. Conclusions: The review provides a comprehensive list of the most relevant cues that signify pain in persons with dementia and offers a foundation for the use of artificial intelligence and digital monitoring for the screening of pain in dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.