Literature DB >> 11354213

The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain.

A M Kelly1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score varies according to the severity of pain reported.
METHOD: Prospective descriptive study of adult patients in an urban emergency department (ED). On presentation to the ED, patients marked the level of their pain on a 100 mm, non-hatched VAS scale. At 20 minute intervals thereafter they were asked to give a verbal categorical rating of their pain as "a lot better", "a little better", "much the same", "a little worse" or "much worse" and to mark the level of pain on a VAS scale of the same type as used previously. It was pre-defined that patients with VAS pain scores of 30 mm or less would be categorised as having mild pain, those with scores of 70 mm or more were categorised as having severe pain and those from 31 mm to 69 mm, moderate pain. The minimal clinically significant difference (MCSD) in VAS pain score was defined as the mean difference between current and preceding scores when the subject reported "a little worse" or "a little better" pain.
RESULTS: 156 patients were enrolled in the study, yielding 88 evaluable comparisons where pain was rated as "a little better" or "a little worse". The MCSD in VAS score in the group overall was 12 mm (95%CI 9 mm to 15 mm). MCSD in VAS score for the "mild pain" group was 11 mm (95%CI 4 mm to 18 mm), for the "moderate pain" group 14 mm (95%CI 10 mm to 18 mm) and for the severe pain group, 10 mm (95%CI 6 mm to 14 mm). There is no statistical difference between the MCSD in VAS score between the severity groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The MCSD in VAS pain score does not differ with the severity of pain being experienced.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11354213      PMCID: PMC1725574          DOI: 10.1136/emj.18.3.205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Med J        ISSN: 1472-0205            Impact factor:   2.740


  7 in total

1.  The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres?

Authors:  S L Collins; R A Moore; H J McQuay
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 6.961

2.  Parametric statistics for evaluation of the visual analog scale.

Authors:  B K Philip
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 5.108

3.  Graphic representation of pain.

Authors:  J Scott; E C Huskisson
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 6.961

4.  Does the clinically significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores vary with gender, age, or cause of pain?

Authors:  A M Kelly
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.451

Review 5.  Measuring pain at baseline and over time.

Authors:  J Menegazzi
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 5.721

Review 6.  Clinical versus statistical significance in the assessment of pain relief.

Authors:  K H Todd
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 5.721

7.  Analysis of statistical tests to compare visual analog scale measurements among groups.

Authors:  F Dexter; D H Chestnut
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 7.892

  7 in total
  190 in total

1.  A comparison of topical menthol to ice on pain, evoked tetanic and voluntary force during delayed onset muscle soreness.

Authors:  Pramod Johar; Varun Grover; Robert Topp; David G Behm
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2012-06

Review 2.  Peripheral response to cervical or thoracic spinal manual therapy: an evidence-based review with meta analysis.

Authors:  Jennifer Chu; Diane D Allen; Sarah Pawlowsky; Betty Smoot
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2014-11

3.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  Wale A R Sulaiman; Manish Singh
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

Review 4.  Pain assessment.

Authors:  Mathias Haefeli; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Effects of stabilization exercise using a ball on mutifidus cross-sectional area in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Sinho Chung; Jusang Lee; Jangsoon Yoon
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 2.988

6.  Flapless conventional thyroidectomy: a prospective, randomized study.

Authors:  Erdinc Kamer; Haluk Unalp; Hayrullah Derici; Taner Akguner; Yesim Erbil; Halim Issever; Mustafa Peskersoy
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 2.549

7.  Chronic sequelae of common elective groin hernia repair.

Authors:  M J A Loos; R M H Roumen; M R M Scheltinga
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2007-02-06       Impact factor: 4.739

8.  The Reliability of Remembered Pretreatment Visual Analog Scale Scores among Hand-Surgery Patients.

Authors:  Vilhjalmur Finsen; Sigrun Hillesund; Ida Fromreide
Journal:  J Hand Microsurg       Date:  2019-04-17

9.  Intraoperative Arthroscopic Cold Irrigation Solution Does Not Affect Postoperative Pain and Swelling.

Authors:  A Louise Fincher; G William Woods; Daniel P. O'Connor
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  A randomized placebo-controlled trial of single-dose IM corticosteroid for radicular low back pain.

Authors:  Benjamin W Friedman; David Esses; Clemencia Solorzano; Hong K Choi; Michael Cole; Michelle Davitt; Polly E Bijur; E J Gallagher
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.