Literature DB >> 26447700

Evaluating acute pain intensity relief: challenges when using an 11-point numerical rating scale.

Jean-Marc Chauny1, Jean Paquet, Gilles Lavigne, Martin Marquis, Raoul Daoust.   

Abstract

Percentage of pain intensity difference (PercentPID) is a recognized way of evaluating pain relief with an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) but is not without flaws. A new metric, the slope of relative pain intensity difference (SlopePID), which consists in dividing PercentPID by the time between 2 pain measurements, is proposed. This study aims to validate SlopePID with 3 measures of subjective pain relief: a 5-category relief scale (not, a little, moderate, very, complete), a 2-category relief question ("I'm relieved," "I'm not relieved"), and a single-item question, "Wanting other medication to treat pain?" (Yes/No). This prospective cohort study included 361 patients in the emergency department who had an initial acute pain NRS > 3 and a pain intensity assessment within 90 minutes after analgesic administration. Mean age was 50.2 years (SD = 19.3) and 59% were women. Area under the curves of receiver operating characteristic curves analyses revealed similar discriminative power for PercentPID (0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.88) and SlopePID (0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86). Considering the "very" category from the 5-category relief scale as a substantial relief, the average cutoff for substantial relief was a decrease of 64% (95% CI, 59-69) for PercentPID and of 49% per hour (95% CI, 44-54) for SlopePID. However, when a cutoff criterion of 50% was used as a measure of pain relief for an individual patient, PercentPID underestimated pain-relieved patients by 12.1% (P < 0.05) compared with the SlopePID measurement, when pain intensity at baseline was an odd number compared with an even number (32.9% vs 45.0%, respectively). SlopePID should be used instead of PercentPID as a metric to evaluate acute pain relief on a 0 to 10 NRS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26447700     DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000382

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  4 in total

1.  Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation for Moderate to Severe Pain in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Pin Wu; Lu Zhu; Shi-Yu Zheng; Jun-Xiong Li; Meng-Die Wu; Wen-Jia Wang; Yu-Chao Hou; Jing Li; Huan-Gan Wu
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 2.832

2.  Effect of ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency on intercostal neuralgia after lung cancer surgery: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Tong Wei; Hui Hou; Li-Li Zhou; Qiu-Xia Mu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 1.889

3.  Clinically significant changes in pain along the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Hidenori Suzuki; Shuichi Aono; Shinsuke Inoue; Yasuaki Imajo; Norihiro Nishida; Masahiro Funaba; Hidenori Harada; Aki Mori; Mishiya Matsumoto; Fumihiro Higuchi; Shin Nakagawa; Shu Tahara; Satoshi Ikeda; Hironori Izumi; Toshihiko Taguchi; Takahiro Ushida; Takashi Sakai
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Regional block anesthesia for adult patients with inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review.

Authors:  Jie Lv; Qi Zhang; Ting Zeng; Xue-Feng Li; Yang Cui
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 1.817

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.