Literature DB >> 14655227

Can patients accurately read a visual analog pain scale?

David Salo1, Donna Eget, Robert F Lavery, Leon Garner, Steven Bernstein, Kirti Tandon.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was too determine if patients can accurately read a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. A 100-mm visual analog pain scale designed for patient use was printed on the top page of carbonless copy paper with a perfectly aligned hatched scale on the second (bottom) page. Patients over the age of 18 in acute pain were enrolled in this prospective, descriptive study. Patients were asked demographic questions and to indicate their pain severity with a single mark through the 100-mm scale. Once scored, patients were asked to read the number from the hatched bottom scale. Two physician-raters, blinded to patients' and each other's readings, then scored the VAS. Analysis of physician interrater reliability and correlation of patient and physician readings was performed. One hundred forty-five patients were enrolled. Seventy-nine patients (54.5%) read the VAS exactly as physician-readers. One hundred thirty-eight (95.2%) read their VAS within +/-2 mm of physician readings. Ninety-five percent of patients are able to read a VAS within +/-2 mm of physician readings. The data suggests this instrument could be used by discharged patients in longitudinal pain studies or with help in management of chronic pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14655227     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2003.08.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  11 in total

1.  [Perioperative pain therapy in interventions for elbow stiffness].

Authors:  S Goebel; J Broscheit
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  Oral cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitors versus other oral analgesics for acute soft tissue injury: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Peter Jones; Rain Lamdin
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.859

Review 3.  Cuboid syndrome: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Stephen M Patterson
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 2.988

4.  Evaluation of pain during intravitreal Ozurdex injections vs. intravitreal bevacizumab injections.

Authors:  E Moisseiev; M Regenbogen; T Rabinovitch; A Barak; A Loewenstein; M Goldstein
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  Comparison of two anesthetic methods for intravitreal ozurdex injection.

Authors:  V Levent Karabaş; Berna Özkan; Çiğdem Akdağ Koçer; Özgül Altıntaş; Dilara Pirhan; Nurşen Yüksel
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 1.909

6.  Pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study.

Authors:  E Moisseiev; D Loberman; E Zunz; A Kesler; A Loewenstein; J Mandelblum
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 3.775

7.  Effect of monophasic pulsed current on heel pain and functional activities caused by plantar fasciitis.

Authors:  Abdullah K Alotaibi; Jerrold S Petrofsky; Noha S Daher; Everett Lohman; Michael Laymon; Hasan M Syed
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2015-03-20

8.  Treatment efficacy of (153)Sm-EDTMP for painful bone metastasis.

Authors:  Narjess Ayati; Kamran Aryana; Amir Jalilian; Toktam Hoseinnejad; Ali Bahrami Samani; Zahra Ayati; Farzane Shariati; S Rasoul Zakavi
Journal:  Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2013

9.  Intravitreal Injections of Bevacizumab: The Impact of Needle Size in Intraocular Pressure and Pain.

Authors:  Mónica Loureiro; Rita Matos; Paula Sepulveda; Dália Meira
Journal:  J Curr Glaucoma Pract       Date:  2017-08-05

10.  Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus other oral analgesic agents for acute soft tissue injury.

Authors:  Peter Jones; Rain Lamdin; Stuart R Dalziel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-08-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.