Key result
Heart rate variability and electroencephalogram showed clear and consistent results for acute pain assessment, while magnetic resonance imaging was capable of measuring chronic pain.
Why the study?
Pain is most frequently assessed via self-reports and observation, but physiological methods could improve accuracy and reliability for individuals with communicative difficulties.
Do physiological methods accurately and reliably assess acute and chronic pain in humans?
Population
Humans with acute or chronic pain across different subject groups
Comparison
Physiological methods for assessing pain ranked by invasiveness, vulnerability, and technological maturity
Design
Systematic review of review papers
Authors
Loading...
Supports objective pain assessment in clinical practice; confirms physiological methods' reliability while extending validation beyond self-report.
Systematic Review
Do physiological methods accurately and reliably assess acute and chronic pain in humans?
Heart rate variability and EEG are consistent physiological measures for acute pain, and MRI for chronic pain, but their use in vulnerable populations remains uncommon.
Korving et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review in Acute or chronic pain. Physiological methods for assessing pain was evaluated on Technological maturity, invasiveness, and vulnerability per subject group for physiological pain assessment methods. Heart rate variability and electroencephalogram showed clear and consistent results for acute pain assessment, while magnetic resonance imaging was capable of measuring chronic pain.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: