How much change in pain score does really matter to patients?

被引:61
作者
Bahreini, Maryam [1 ]
Safaie, Arash [1 ]
Mirfazaelian, Hadi [2 ]
Jalili, Mohammad [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Sina Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, Tehran, Iran
[2] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Dept Emergency Med, Tehran, Iran
关键词
Minimal clinically important difference; Numeric rating scale; Pain measurement; Visual analog scale; CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; RATING-SCALE; VALIDATION; SEVERITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajem.2019.158489
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Objective: The goal of this study was to determine the minimal change in pain score recognized by patients as meaningful known as minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Methods: Pain was recorded upon admission, 30 and 60 min later and patients were asked to describe the extent of pain change on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "much better" to "much worse". Patients reported their pain by two common pain scales comprising numeric rating scale (NRS) and visual analog scale (VAS). We used receiver operating characteristic curve to assess the accuracy of pain scales. We then calculated the mean change in pain scores among patients who reported their pain change as "a little better" or "a little worse" and also analyzed regression to evaluate the MCID. Results: A total of 150 patients and 253 pain changes were recruited. The MCID +/- SD (95% CI) was 1.65 +/- 1.58 (1.32-1.97) for NRS and 16.55 +/- 17.53 (12.96-20.15) for VAS. The area under the curve by NRS and VAS were 0.86 and 0.89. For linear regression, the line slope and the y-intercept were 17.56 and 1.88, for VAS; these values were 1.73 and 0.31 for NRS, respectively. Conclusions: Recognizing the extent of change in pain score that really matters to patients is crucial for the evaluation of treatment effect. Patients perceived a change of 1.65 points on NRS and 16.55 on VAS in their pain severity as meaningful. This value was not different whether the pain was perceived alleviated or aggravated. (c) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1641 / 1646
页数:6
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies
    Angst, Felix
    Aeschlimann, Andre
    Angst, Jules
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 82 : 128 - 136
  • [2] A COMPARISON OF THREE SELF-REPORT PAIN SCALES IN ADULTS WITH ACUTE PAIN
    Bahreini, Maryam
    Jalili, Mohammad
    Moradi-Lakeh, Maziar
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2015, 48 (01) : 10 - 18
  • [3] Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings
    Bartley, E. J.
    Fillingim, R. B.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2013, 111 (01) : 52 - 58
  • [4] Bijur PE, 2003, ACAD EMERG MED, V10, P390, DOI 10.1197/aemj.10.4.390
  • [5] Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods
    Copay, Anne G.
    Subach, Brian R.
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    Schuler, Thomas C.
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2007, 7 (05) : 541 - 546
  • [6] The Clinical Importance of Changes in the 0 to 10 Numeric Rating Scale for Worst, Least, and Average Pain Intensity: Analyses of Data from Clinical Trials of Duloxetine in Pain Disorders
    Farrar, John T.
    Pritchett, Yili L.
    Robinson, Michael
    Prakash, Apurva
    Chappell, Amy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2010, 11 (02) : 109 - 118
  • [7] FERRAZ MB, 1990, J RHEUMATOL, V17, P1022
  • [8] Validity of four pain intensity rating scales
    Ferreira-Valente, Maria Alexandra
    Pais-Ribeiro, Jose Luis
    Jensen, Mark P.
    [J]. PAIN, 2011, 152 (10) : 2399 - 2404
  • [9] Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale
    Gallagher, EJ
    Liebman, M
    Bijur, PE
    [J]. ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2001, 38 (06) : 633 - 638
  • [10] Interpreting thresholds for a clinically significant change in health status in asthma and COPD
    Jones, PW
    [J]. EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2002, 19 (03) : 398 - 404