Literature DB >> 8636628

A visual analogue thermometer for measuring pain intensity.

M Choinière1, R Amsel.   

Abstract

A new instrument for measuring pain intensity--the visual analogue thermometer (VAT)--was developed to overcome limitations and disadvantages of the conventional visual analogue scale (VAS). Two studies were performed to assess the validity and utility of the VAT as compared to conventional pain instruments whose psychometric qualities are scientifically recognized. The first study was carried out with a group of 65 chronic pain patients who provided pain intensity ratings using the VAT, a standard VAS, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. A second set of measures was obtained from a group of 243 adult healthy volunteers who quantified the intensity of a set of descriptive pain terms with the VAT, a numerical scale (NUM), and a VAS. The results of both studies support the concurrent validity of the VAT as a pain measure. When assessing changes in pain levels, the VAT was able to distinguish between different pain intensities, confirming the construct validity of the instrument. No major difference emerged in the relative sensitivity of the VAT compared to the standard VAS, both scales yielding comparable pain estimates. In contrast, the NUM scale tended to produce higher pain ratings. Regardless of the pain scale used, the results showed unequal differences between descriptive pain terms that are commonly considered equidistant on an ordinal scale. No major problem was noticed in subjects' understanding or using either the VAT, VAS, or NUM scales. When questioned about pain scale preference, a substantial number of participants preferred the VAT to the standard VAS as a means of rating pain intensity. In view of the results obtained in the present studies, it is concluded that the VAT is a valid accurate, and clinically useful tool for measuring pain. Its design makes it suitable and effective for clinical use and as an outcome measure in clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8636628     DOI: 10.1016/0885-3924(95)00204-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage        ISSN: 0885-3924            Impact factor:   3.612


  11 in total

1.  Is the evaluation of the global quality of life determined by emotional status?

Authors:  H Heinonen; A R Aro; A M Aalto; A Uutela
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Pain assessment.

Authors:  Mathias Haefeli; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Paediatric partial-thickness scald burns--is Biobrane the best treatment available?

Authors:  Anirban Mandal
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  [Pain assessment in invasive diagnostic procedures. Comparison of an eleven-point numerical rating scale and a six-point verbal rating scale for pain measurement in bone marrow puncture].

Authors:  M Weber; J Schüz; J Kuball; H Gamm; J Jage
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.107

5.  Effects of fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) nodule depth on pain score.

Authors:  H Toman; F Ozkul; G Erbag; M Erbas; T Simsek; G Adam; M K Arik; M Asik
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 1.568

6.  Cross-cultural adaptation of the German version of the spinal stenosis measure.

Authors:  Maria M Wertli; Johann Steurer; Lukas M Wildi; Ulrike Held
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  A comparison between different outcome measures based on "meaningful important differences" in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Maria M Wertli; Franziska Christina Buletti; Ulrike Held; Eva Rasmussen-Barr; Sherri Weiser; Jakob M Burgstaller; Johann Steurer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Repeated use of immersive virtual reality therapy to control pain during wound dressing changes in pediatric and adult burn patients.

Authors:  Albertus W Faber; David R Patterson; Marco Bremer
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.845

9.  Randomized comparison of prophylaxis and on-demand regimens with FEIBA NF in the treatment of haemophilia A and B with inhibitors.

Authors:  S V Antunes; S Tangada; O Stasyshyn; V Mamonov; J Phillips; N Guzman-Becerra; A Grigorian; B Ewenstein; W-Y Wong
Journal:  Haemophilia       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 4.287

Review 10.  Strategies and methods to study female-specific cardiovascular health and disease: a guide for clinical scientists.

Authors:  Pamela Ouyang; Nanette K Wenger; Doris Taylor; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Meir Steiner; Leslee J Shaw; Sarah L Berga; Virginia M Miller; Noel Bairey Merz
Journal:  Biol Sex Differ       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 5.027

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.