All 4 faces pain scales were found to be adequately supported by psychometric data .
When given a choice between faces scales , children preferred the WBFPRS .
Confounding of pain intensity with affect caused by use of smiling and crying anchor faces is a disadvantage of the WBFPRS .
: For clinical use , we found no grounds to switch from 1 faces scale to another when 1 of the scales is in use .
CONTEXT : Numerous faces scales have been developed for the measurement of  pain intensity in children .
It remains unclear whether any one of the faces scales is better for a particular purpose with regard to validity , reliability , feasibility , and preference .
OBJECTIVES : To summarize and systematic ally review faces pain scales most commonly used to obtain self-report of pain intensity in children for evaluation of reliability and validity and to compare the scales for preference and utility .
Relative Efficacy of Amethocaine Gel and Lidocaine–Prilocaine Cream for Port-a-Cath Puncture in Children
Background . Lidocaine – prilocaine cream ( EMLA ) is currently st and ard therapy to alleviate procedural pain in children . One of the disadvantages of lidocaine – prilocaine is the need to wait for 60 minutes for adequate skin anesthesia . Amethocaine gel ( Ametop ) is a new topical anesthetic that requires a shorter application time for skin anesthesia . Objectives . To compare the relative efficacy and safety of amethocaine gel and lidocaine – prilocaine cream in children with cancer undergoing Port-a-Cath puncture and to determine which patient factors influence judgments about pain . Methods . R and omized , blinded , crossover study . Each child received either 1 g of amethocaine gel for 30 minutes , preceded by a placebo gel for 30 minutes , or 1 g of lidocaine – prilocaine cream for 60 minutes . Children rated the pain using the faces scale , for which scores ranged from 0 to 5 . Parents and attending nurse operators rated pain on a 10-cm visual analog scale . Results . Thirty-nine children participated . The mean age was 10.2 years ( range : 5–16 years ) , and 69 % were male . There were no differences in mean pain assessment s between amethocaine and lidocaine – prilocaine as rated by the children ( 2.0 vs 0.5 ) , parents ( 2.6 vs 6.4 ) , or nurse operators ( 2.0 vs 0.9 ) . No serious adverse effects were detected with either preparation . Pain scores assigned by parents and children were not influenced by age , gender , duration of diagnosis , or anesthetic regimen ( amethocaine versus lidocaine – prilocaine ) in the child . Nurses , however , rated pain higher for younger children , and in males during pretreatment with lidocaine – prilocaine . Conclusion . Amethocaine achieves similar anesthesia to lidocaine – prilocaine during Port-a-Cath administration in children , with an application time that is half of lidocaine – prilocaine .  Pain assessment s were not influenced by age , gender , or duration of diagnosis of the child . Nurses may perceive that pain is greater for younger children and in males . lidocaine – prilocaine , amethocaine , pain , children , Port-a-Cath puncture
All 4 faces pain scales were found to be adequately supported by psychometric data .
When given a choice between faces scales , children preferred the WBFPRS .
Confounding of pain intensity with affect caused by use of smiling and crying anchor faces is a disadvantage of the WBFPRS .
: For clinical use , we found no grounds to switch from 1 faces scale to another when 1 of the scales is in use .
CONTEXT : Numerous faces scales have been developed for the measurement of  pain intensity in children .
It remains unclear whether any one of the faces scales is better for a particular purpose with regard to validity , reliability , feasibility , and preference .
OBJECTIVES : To summarize and systematic ally review faces pain scales most commonly used to obtain self-report of pain intensity in children for evaluation of reliability and validity and to compare the scales for preference and utility .