Comparing Quantification of Pain Severity by Verbal Rating and Numeric Rating Scales

被引:57
作者
Dijkers, Marcel [1 ]
机构
[1] Mt Sinai Sch Med, New York, NY 10029 USA
关键词
Spinal cord injuries; Pain; neuropathic; musculoskeletal; central; Reproducibility; Pain measurement; Visual Analog Scale; Verbal Rating Scale; Numeric Rating Scale; SPINAL-CORD-INJURY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; INTENSITY ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; CLINICAL PAIN; QUESTIONNAIRE; PREVALENCE; YOUNGER; PATIENT; ADULTS;
D O I
10.1080/10790268.2010.11689700
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Researchers have reported widely varying correlations among the 3 main instruments used to quantify pain severity, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), both at the level of groups and at the level of individuals. Objective: To assess the comparability of reports of pain severity using a VRS and a NRS in a spinal cord injury (SCI) sample. Methods: Data were taken from a longitudinal observational study. Patients were 168 individuals with new traumatic SCI admitted for inpatient rehabilitation who completed the VRS and NRS multiple times, each time for multiple pains as appropriate. Results: For 1,114 ratings of pain, VRS and corresponding NRS ratings were correlated weakly (Spearman correlation, rho = 0.38). For 36 individuals with at least 10 completions of paired VRS and NRS, rho ranged from -0.55 to 0.76. Variation in NRS rating for each VRS adjective was reduced by about 25% when between-patient variation was eliminated. Mean NRS ratings by VRS adjective, for patients who had used each of at least 2 adjectives at least 5 times each, showed large differences in mean NRS scores between individuals using the same VRS adjective. Conclusion: There are considerable differences between individuals in how NRS and VRS are used; there also seem to be individuals whose understanding of the meaning of the VRS adjectives is completely different from what was assumed by the creators of this VRS. Both VRS and NRS data must be used with extreme caution by SCI clinicians and researchers.
引用
收藏
页码:232 / 242
页数:11
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] Assessment of visual analog versus categorical scale for measurement of osteoarthritis pain
    Averbuch, M
    Katzper, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2004, 44 (04) : 368 - 372
  • [2] Berntson L, 2001, ACTA PAEDIATR, V90, P1131
  • [3] Response relationship of VAS and Likert scales in osteoarthritis efficacy measurement
    Bolognese, JA
    Schnitzer, TJ
    Ehrich, EW
    [J]. OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2003, 11 (07) : 499 - 507
  • [4] A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data
    Breivik, EK
    Björnsson, GA
    Skovlund, E
    [J]. CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2000, 16 (01) : 22 - 28
  • [5] From the 2006 NIDRR SCI measures meeting - Pain after spinal cord injury: An evidence-based review for clinical practice and research
    Bryce, Thomas N.
    Norrbrink, Cecilia
    Cardenas, Diana D.
    Dijkers, Marcel
    Felix, Elizabeth R.
    Finnerup, Nanna B.
    Kennedy, Paul
    Lundeberg, Thomas
    Richards, J. Scott
    Rintala, Diana H.
    Siddall, Philip
    Widerstrom-Noga, Eva
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE, 2007, 30 (05) : 421 - 440
  • [6] Reliability of the Bryce/Ragnarsson spinal cord injury pain taxonomy
    Bryce, Thomas N.
    Dijkers, Marcel P. J. M.
    Ragnarsson, Kristjan T.
    Stein, Adam B.
    Chen, Bojun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE, 2006, 29 (02) : 118 - 132
  • [7] Clark P, 2003, J RHEUMATOL, V30, P1584
  • [8] Prevalence of chronic pain after traumatic spinal cord injury: A systematic review
    Dijkers, Marcel
    Bryce, Thomas
    Zanca, Jeanne
    [J]. JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 2009, 46 (01) : 13 - 29
  • [9] Fadaizadeh L, 2009, ARCH IRAN MED, V12, P73
  • [10] Pain intensity assessment in older adults - Use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults
    Herr, KA
    Spratt, K
    Mobily, PR
    Richardson, G
    [J]. CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2004, 20 (04) : 207 - 219