Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain

Joyce, C. R. B.; Zutshi, D W; Hrubes, V; Mason, Rachael

doi:10.1007/bf00562315

Cited by 449 publications

(242 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

233

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This lower level of responsivity may be related to the lower number of response categories of these measures. However, we did find that both of these scales were able to detect changes in pain associated with differences in water temperature, indicating that they are valid and could be used when responsivity is not a critical issue [6,9,24,25,31]. Also, statisticians note that it is possible to draw valid conclusions using parametric analysis with ordinal data, such as data from VRSs, especially if number of categories in the scale is 5 or more [5,18,38].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales

Ferreira-Valente

Pais-Ribeiro

Jensen

2011

Pain

1,386

931

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) are among the most commonly used measures of pain intensity in clinical and research settings. Although evidence supports their validity as measures of pain intensity, few studies have compared them with respect to the critical validity criteria of responsivity, and no experiment has directly compared all 4 measures in the same study. The current study compared the relative validity of VAS, NRS, VRS, and FPS-R for detecting differences in painful stimulus intensity and differences between men and women in response to experimentally induced pain. One hundred twenty-seven subjects underwent four 20-second cold pressor trials with temperature order counterbalanced across 1°C, 3°C, 5°C, and 7°C and rated pain intensity using all 4 scales. Results showed statistically significant differences in pain intensity between temperatures for each scale, with lower temperatures resulting in higher pain intensity. The order of responsivity was as follows: NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R. However, there were relatively small differences in the responsivity between scales. A statistically significant sex main effect was also found for the NRS, VRS, and FPS-R. The findings are consistent with previous studies supporting the validity of each scale. The most support emerged for the NRS as being both (1) most responsive and (2) able to detect sex differences in pain intensity. The results also provide support for the validity of the scales for use in Portuguese samples. Ó

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales

Ferreira-Valente

Pais-Ribeiro

Jensen

2011

Pain

1,386

931

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8,9 Although the VAS may show deficiencies regarding understanding (especially related to old age) and precision, 10,11 it provides a validated and meaningful measure of anaesthetic efficiency, 12 being used for this purpose by many authors. 2,12,13,14,15 This investigation not only ratified the results obtained by the mentioned authors 2,5,7 with respect to anaesthetic efficiency, but also showed that there were no differences between the solutions with respect to palatal pain sensitivity to injection five minutes after infiltration at the buccal side, which could be seen from the values of 2.3 and 2.7 for VAS, respectively for articaine and lignocaine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Articaine and lignocaine efficiency in infiltration anaesthesia: a pilot study

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Rating scales have been shown to outperform other utility measures in differentiating among alternative health states (22)(23)(24). Although ratings are not used as a measure under conditions of uncertainty, other investigators have reported them to be a reliable and consistent method for assessment of quality of life, noting that rating-scale values tend to be lower than those elicited by the standard gamble and other utility measures (25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). In a study of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, a rating scale was preferred to a standard gamble instrument as a means of assessing the impact of interventions on health outcomes, because it had better construct validity and ability to detect differences in health status (33).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of disease severity and gastrointestinal side effects on the health state preferences of patients with osteoarthritis

Chang¹,

Kauf²,

Mahajan³

et al. 2005

Arthritis & Rheumatism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To describe the health state preferences of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) according to the level of pain and disability and the extent of gastrointestinal side effects from nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).Methods. Using combinations of 5 OA health states (4 specifying medication use) and 6 gastrointestinal side effect profiles, we developed 25 scenarios. In an Internet survey, adults with OA evaluated 5 randomly chosen health state-side effect scenarios (in addition to scenarios for congestive heart failure and wearing dentures, as benchmarks). They rated the scenarios on a 0-100 scale, in which 100 corresponds to best imaginable health. Unadjusted mean ratings were calculated using a difference-in-difference approach. A generalized linear model was used to estimate the effects of disease severity and side effect severity on the ratings, after controlling for patient characteristics.Results. A total of 4,386 respondents whose mean age was 55.3 years, of whom 3,107 (70.8%) were women and 4,007 (91.4%) were white, completed the survey. Mean adjusted ratings for health state-side effect scenarios ranged from 94.9 for the mildest scenario to 25.3 for the most severe scenario. Severity of NSAID side effects had a greater negative influence on the ratings in milder OA states than in more severe OA states. Ratings were lower among men (P < 0.001) and among respondents with OA pain in the previous 24 hours (P < 0.001). Disease severity had a greater effect on ratings than did side effect severity. Conclusion.Patients consider pain and functional limitations associated with OA to be important determinants of well-being. Future research should attempt to determine whether patients prefer reductions in their OA-related pain and disability over improvements in treatment side effect profiles.Arthritis and other rheumatic conditions are leading causes of disability in the US, affecting 1 of every 3 noninstitutionalized adults (1,2). The prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA), the most common form of arthritis, increases with age and is highest among persons ages Ͼ45 years (3). With the aging of the US population, the prevalence of OA is expected to increase substantially by 2030 (4).Pain from OA is commonly treated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors. All NSAIDs are associated with side effects. Patients' ratings of OA health states and/or side effects from medications have not been reported widely in the literature, and few studies in any therapeutic area have examined the influence of treatment-related side effects on patients' assessments of health states or health utilities, a concept similar to health-related quality of life (5-8). Researchers generally have studied side effects as separate health states

show abstract

Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain

Cited by 449 publications

References 6 publications

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales

Articaine and lignocaine efficiency in infiltration anaesthesia: a pilot study

Impact of disease severity and gastrointestinal side effects on the health state preferences of patients with osteoarthritis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About