Erin E Krebs1, Timothy S Carey, Morris Weinberger. 1. Center on Implementing Evidence-Based Practice, Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA. krebse@iupui.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Universal pain screening with a 0-10 pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS) has been widely implemented in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the NRS as a screening test to identify primary care patients with clinically important pain. DESIGN: Prospective diagnostic accuracy study PARTICIPANTS: 275 adult clinic patients were enrolled from September 2005 to March 2006. MEASUREMENTS: We operationalized clinically important pain using two alternate definitions: (1) pain that interferes with functioning (Brief Pain Inventory interference scale > or = 5) and (2) pain that motivates a physician visit (patient-reported reason for the visit). RESULTS: 22% of patients reported a pain symptom as the main reason for the visit. The most common pain locations were lower extremity (21%) and back/neck (18%). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the NRS as a test for pain that interferes with functioning was 0.76, indicating fair accuracy. A pain screening NRS score of 1 was 69% sensitive (95% CI 60-78) for pain that interferes with functioning. Multilevel likelihood ratios for scores of 0, 1-3, 4-6, and 7-10 were 0.39 (0.29-0.53), 0.99 (0.38-2.60), 2.67 (1.56-4.57), and 5.60 (3.06-10.26), respectively. Results were similar when NRS scores were evaluated against the alternate definition of clinically important pain (pain that motivates a physician visit). CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly used measure for pain screening may have only modest accuracy for identifying patients with clinically important pain in primary care. Further research is needed to evaluate whether pain screening improves patient outcomes in primary care.
BACKGROUND: Universal pain screening with a 0-10 pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS) has been widely implemented in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the NRS as a screening test to identify primary care patients with clinically important pain. DESIGN: Prospective diagnostic accuracy study PARTICIPANTS: 275 adult clinic patients were enrolled from September 2005 to March 2006. MEASUREMENTS: We operationalized clinically important pain using two alternate definitions: (1) pain that interferes with functioning (Brief Pain Inventory interference scale > or = 5) and (2) pain that motivates a physician visit (patient-reported reason for the visit). RESULTS: 22% of patients reported a pain symptom as the main reason for the visit. The most common pain locations were lower extremity (21%) and back/neck (18%). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the NRS as a test for pain that interferes with functioning was 0.76, indicating fair accuracy. A pain screening NRS score of 1 was 69% sensitive (95% CI 60-78) for pain that interferes with functioning. Multilevel likelihood ratios for scores of 0, 1-3, 4-6, and 7-10 were 0.39 (0.29-0.53), 0.99 (0.38-2.60), 2.67 (1.56-4.57), and 5.60 (3.06-10.26), respectively. Results were similar when NRS scores were evaluated against the alternate definition of clinically important pain (pain that motivates a physician visit). CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly used measure for pain screening may have only modest accuracy for identifying patients with clinically important pain in primary care. Further research is needed to evaluate whether pain screening improves patient outcomes in primary care.
Authors: Kimberly S H Yarnall; Kathryn I Pollak; Truls Østbye; Katrina M Krause; J Lloyd Michener Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Richard A Mularski; Foy White-Chu; Devorah Overbay; Lois Miller; Steven M Asch; Linda Ganzini Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: San Keller; Carla M Bann; Sheri L Dodd; Jeff Schein; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Nancy Brandenburg; Daniel B Carr; Charles Cleeland; Raymond Dionne; John T Farrar; Bradley S Galer; David J Hewitt; Alejandro R Jadad; Nathaniel P Katz; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; James P Robinson; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; James Witter Journal: Pain Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Steven K Dobscha; Travis I Lovejoy; Benjamin J Morasco; Anne E Kovas; Dawn M Peters; Kyle Hart; J Lucas Williams; Bentson H McFarland Journal: J Pain Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Timothy F Platts-Mills; Sean A Flannigan; Andrey V Bortsov; Samantha Smith; Robert M Domeier; Robert A Swor; Phyllis L Hendry; David A Peak; Niels K Rathlev; Jeffrey S Jones; David C Lee; Francis J Keefe; Philip D Sloane; Samuel A McLean Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Mariel S Bello; Julia F McBeth; Joseph W Ditre; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Lara A Ray; Kelly E Dunn; Adam M Leventhal Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2018-08-02
Authors: Joseph L Goulet; Cynthia Brandt; Stephen Crystal; David A Fiellin; Cynthia Gibert; Adam J Gordon; Robert D Kerns; Stephen Maisto; Amy C Justice Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Kirsten Moisio; Felix Eckstein; Joan S Chmiel; Ali Guermazi; Pottumarthi Prasad; Orit Almagor; Jing Song; Dorothy Dunlop; Martin Hudelmaier; Ami Kothari; Leena Sharma Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-12
Authors: Lisa Zubkoff; Karl A Lorenz; Andy B Lanto; Cathy D Sherbourne; Joy R Goebel; Peter A Glassman; Lisa R Shugarman; Lisa S Meredith; Steven M Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 5.128