Literature DB >> 25878960

Visual analog scale: Verify appropriate statistics.

S Kannan1, S Gowri2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2015        PMID: 25878960      PMCID: PMC4394580          DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.154020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Clin Res        ISSN: 2229-3485


× No keyword cloud information.
Sir, This is in reference to the letter criticizing the use of repeated measures ANOVA for measuring pain by visual analog scale (VAS).[1] The author argues that the data on VAS in the original study[2] was unpaired and ordinal scale so should have ideally used Kruskal–Wallis-H test. We would like to bring to the notice that in the original study, the intensity of pain was measured at the intervals of 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 h following the intervention on the study participants. Hence, the data is paired. Furthermore, for the analysis of VAS the appropriateness of statistical tests is controversial. Some authors have used nonparametric tests considering the ordinal nature of the data.[3] However, studies have also shown that VAS possess interval and ratio properties and so can be treated as numerical data.[4] In addition, Dexter and Chestnut[5] has evaluated both nonparametric (Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis-H tests) and parametric (t-test and ANOVA test) for the same set of data and found that all the statistical tests performed similarly in case of absence of any difference in the VAS between the groups but when minimal difference existed, only parametric tests were able to detect the same. Hence, the use of repeated measures ANOVA by Akhavanakbari et al.[2] shall not be considered inappropriate, provided they are normally distributed. There was no information in the article pertaining to the normality check of the data that should have been performed before choosing a parametric test. Furthermore, by looking at the VAS scores at each of the time points from Table 1, there are no indications on the data being nonparametric. Hence, without the original data it cannot be argued that the authors have misused statistics.
  5 in total

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

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

2.  The use of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in rehabilitation outcomes.

Authors:  Paula Kersten; Ayşe A Küçükdeveci; Alan Tennant
Journal:  J Rehabil Med       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.912

3.  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

4.  Evaluation the effects of adding ketamine to morphine in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after orthopedic surgery.

Authors:  Godrat Akhavanakbari; Ali Mohamadian; Masood Entezariasl
Journal:  Perspect Clin Res       Date:  2014-04

5.  The (mis)use of statistics: Which test where?

Authors:  Priya Ranganathan
Journal:  Perspect Clin Res       Date:  2014-10
  5 in total
  3 in total

1.  A Pilot Study of Perceived Mouth Dryness, Perceived Swallowing Effort, and Saliva Substitute Effects in Healthy Adults Across the Age Range.

Authors:  Nicole M Rogus-Pulia; Ronald Gangnon; Amy Kind; Nadine P Connor; Sanjay Asthana
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 3.438

2.  E-learning is a burden for the deaf and hard of hearing.

Authors:  Filipa M Rodrigues; Ana Maria Abreu; Ingela Holmström; Ana Mineiro
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Fluoride varnish versus glutaraldehyde for hypersensitive teeth: a randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Authors:  Gowri Sivaramakrishnan; Kannan Sridharan
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-04-02       Impact factor: 3.573

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.