Literature DB >> 3785962

The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods.

Mark P Jensen1, Paul Karoly, Sanford Braver.   

Abstract

The measurement of subjective pain intensity continues to be important to both researchers and clinicians. Although several scales are currently used to assess the intensity construct, it remains unclear which of these provides the most precise, replicable, and predictively valid measure. Five criteria for judging intensity scales have been considered in previous research: ease of administration of scoring; relative rates of incorrect responding; sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories; sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and the magnitude of the relationship between each scale and a linear combination of pain intensity indices. In order to judge commonly used pain intensity measures, 75 chronic pain patients were asked to rate 4 kinds of pain (present, least, most, and average) using 6 scales. The utility and validity of the scales was judged using the criteria listed above. The results indicate that, for the present sample, the scales yield similar results in terms of the number of subjects who respond correctly to them and their predictive validity. However, when considering the remaining 3 criteria, the 101-point numerical rating scale appears to be the most practical index.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3785962     DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9

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


  531 in total

1.  Comparison between the CR10 Borg's scale and the VAS (visual analogue scale) during an arm-cranking exercise.

Authors:  E M Capodaglio
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2001-06

2.  Sex differences in the relations of positive and negative daily events and fatigue in adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Mary C Davis; Morris A Okun; Denise Kruszewski; Alex J Zautra; Howard Tennen
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 5.820

3.  Mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral interventions for chronic pain: differential effects on daily pain reactivity and stress reactivity.

Authors:  Mary C Davis; Alex J Zautra; Laurie D Wolf; Howard Tennen; Ellen W Yeung
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2014-11-03

4.  Severe pain confounds neuropsychological test performance.

Authors:  E J Heyer; R Sharma; C J Winfree; J Mocco; D J McMahon; P A McCormick; D O Quest; J G McMurtry; C J Riedel; R M Lazar; Y Stern; E S Connolly
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.475

5.  Efficacy and tolerability of a topical NSAID patch (local action transcutaneous flurbiprofen) and oral diclofenac in the treatment of soft-tissue rheumatism.

Authors:  M Martens
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 6.  Measuring pain in the clinic.

Authors:  R H Gracely
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  1990 Mar-Jun

7.  Evaluation of algesimetric parameters on the basis of tooth pulp stimulation in humans.

Authors:  P Rohdewald; V Keuth
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  1990 Jan-Feb

8.  Pediatric nurses' beliefs and pain management practices: an intervention pilot.

Authors:  Catherine Van Hulle Vincent; Diana J Wilkie; Edward Wang
Journal:  West J Nurs Res       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 1.967

9.  Distressed, immobilized, or lacking employer support? A sub-classification of acute work-related low back pain.

Authors:  Silje Endresen Reme; William S Shaw; Ivan A Steenstra; Mary Jane Woiszwillo; Glenn Pransky; Steven J Linton
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2012-12

10.  Reliability of the clinical examination in the diagnosis of neurogenic versus vascular claudication.

Authors:  Andrew J Haig; Paul Park; Peter K Henke; Karen S J Yamakawa; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Juan Valdivia; Sierra Loar
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 4.166

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.