Comparison of a verbal numeric rating scale with the visual analogue scale for the measurement of acute pain.

Department of Emergency Medicine, St George Hospital, Gray St, Kogarah, NSW 2217, Australia.
Emergency Medicine Australasia 01/2003; 15(5-6):441-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00499.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To test the agreement between the visual analogue scale (VAS) and a verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS) in measuring acute pain, and measure the minimum clinically significant change in VNRS.
Patients scored their pain by the VAS and the VNRS, then re-scored their pain every 30 min for up to 2 h. Patients also recorded whether their pain had improved or worsened. Agreement between scores was evaluated, and where patients scored their pain as 'a bit worse' or 'a bit better' the mean change in VNRS was calculated.
A total of 309 paired observations were obtained from 79 patients. The VAS and VNRS were highly correlated (r = 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96). The VNRS was significantly higher than the VAS for the paired observations, with 95% of the differences between VAS and VNRS lying between -2.3 and 1.3 cm. The minimum clinically significant difference in VNRS was 1.4 cm (95% CI 1.2-1.6).
The VNRS performs as well as the VAS in assessing changes in pain. However, although the VAS and VNRS are well correlated, patients systematically score their pain higher on the VNRS, with an unacceptably wide distribution of the differences.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anxiety is an unpleasant experience that may have adverse effects on the process of anesthesia, cesarean delivery, recovery period and postoperative pain. Anxiety can also affect maternal satisfaction of the medical cares that provided by the medical team.
    Anesthesiology and pain medicine. 05/2014; 4(2):e16662.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pain is the main adverse effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and few effective analgesic methods are currently available. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of hypnoanalgesia with the use of PDT. Between August 2011 and February 2013, a hypnoanalgesia session was proposed to patients requiring PTD for the treatment of (pre)carcinomatous lesions. At the end of the hypnosis session, patients evaluated their pain on a numeric pain scale (NPS) of 0 to 10. Twelve patients of average age 74.6 years were included. The indication for PDT was actinic keratosis (AK) in 9 patients, 1 Bowen's disease of the penis, 1 mammary Paget's disease and 1 bowenoid papulosis of the penis. Hypnoanalgesia was effective in 8 patients with a mean pain evaluation score of 2.9/10 on the NPS. Six of these 8 patients had previously undergone treatment by PDT without hypnosis and with an average pain score of 8.3/10. Hypnoanalgesia appears to be of value for pain management with PTD. This method is simple, inexpensive and devoid of side effects, and it is active on both pain and anxiety. To improve the use of hypnoanalgesia in PDT, it would be necessary to have better knowledge of the predictive factors for pain in PDT, to determine how to best select patients "sensitive" to hypnosis, and to encourage the training of nurses and doctors in this method.
    Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie 03/2014; 141(3):181-5. · 0.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective was to test the hypothesis that hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Vicodin [5/500]) provides more efficacious analgesia than codeine/acetaminophen (Tylenol #3 [30/300]) in patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). Both are currently Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Schedule III narcotics. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial of patients with acute extremity pain who were discharged home from the ED, comparing a 3-day supply of oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen (5 mg/500 mg) to oral codeine/acetaminophen (30 mg/300 mg). Pain was measured on a valid and reproducible verbal numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 to 10, and patients were contacted by telephone approximately 24 hours after being discharged. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in improvement in pain at 2 hours following the most recent ingestion of the study drug, relative to the time of phone contact after ED discharge. Secondary outcomes compared side-effect profiles and patient satisfaction. The median time from ED discharge to follow-up was 26 hours (interquartile range [IQR] = 24 to 39 hours). The mean NRS pain score before the most recent dose of pain medication after ED discharge was 7.6 NRS units for both groups. The mean decrease in pain scores 2 hours after pain medications were taken were 3.9 NRS units in the hydrocodone/acetaminophen group versus 3.5 NRS units in the codeine/acetaminophen group, for a difference of 0.4 NRS units (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.3 to 1.2 NRS units). No differences were found in side effects or patient satisfaction. Both medications decreased NRS pain scores by approximately 50%. However, the oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen failed to provide clinically or statistically superior pain relief compared to oral codeine/acetaminophen when prescribed to patients discharged from the ED with acute extremity pain. Similarly, there were no clinically or statistically important differences in side-effect profiles or patient satisfaction. If the DEA reclassifies hydrocodone as a Schedule II narcotic, as recently recommended by its advisory board, our data suggest that the codeine/acetaminophen may be a clinically reasonable Schedule III substitute for hydrocodone/acetaminophen at ED discharge. These findings should be regarded as tentative and require independent validation in similar and other acute pain models.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 03/2014; 21(3):227-235. · 1.76 Impact Factor