ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Digital Approaches to Pain Assessment Across Older Adults: A Scoping Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pain in Alzheimer's Disease: Disrupted Multilevel Integration of Nociception, Affective Processing and Clinical Expression Across Clinical and Preclinical Evidence.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Need for Continued Investment in Digital Pain Assessment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Diabetes educational interventions in care homes: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
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
backgroundEffectively managing pain in adults remains challenging, particularly in individuals with cognitive impairment or communication difficulties. Digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled facial recognition and mobile applications, are emerging as innovative tools to improve the objectivity and consistency of pain evaluation. This scoping review aimed to map the current evidence on digital pain-assessment tools used with adult and older populations, focusing on validity, reliability, usability, and contributions to person-centred care.
methodsThe review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Arksey and O'Malley framework and was reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL Complete, Medline (ALL), and PsycINFO for English-language studies published from 2010 onwards. Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) using digital tools for pain assessment. Data extraction and synthesis were performed using Covidence, and findings were analyzed thematically.
resultsOf 1160 records screened, ten studies met inclusion criteria. Most research was quantitative and conducted in high-income clinical settings. Five tools were identified: ePAT/PainChek
conclusionsEmerging evidence suggests that facial-recognition-based digital pain-assessment tools may demonstrate acceptable psychometric performance and usability within dementia care settings in high-income countries. However, evidence relating to broader adult populations, diverse care contexts, and low-resource settings remains limited, highlighting important gaps for future research.
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.