A new foot and ankle outcome score: Questionnaire based, subjective, Visual-Analogue-Scale, validated and computerized

The goals of this study were to examine agreement and estimate differences in sensitivity between pain assessment scales. Multiple simultaneous pain assessments by patients in acute pain after oral surgery were used to compare a four-category verbal rating scale (VRS-4) and an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS-11) with a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). The sensitivity of the scales (i.e., their ability [power] to detect differences between treatments) was compared in a simulation model by sampling from true pairs of observations using varying treatment differences of predetermined size. There was considerable variability in VAS scores within each VRS-4 or NRS-11 category both between patients and for repeated measures from the same patient. Simulation experiments showed that the VAS was systematically more powerful than the VRS-4 in all simulations performed. The sensitivity of the VAS and NRS-11 was approximately equal. In this acute pain model, the VRS-4 was less sensitive than the VAS. The simulation results demonstrated similar sensitivity of the NRS-11 and VAS when comparing acute postoperative pain intensity. The choice between the VAS and NRS-11 can thus be based on subjective preferences.

The effect of analgesics on pathological pain in a double-blind, complete cross-over design was assessed by means of two rating scales, a verbal rating scale (VRS) and visual analogue scale (VAS). The VRS is widely used, but has several disadvantages as compared to the VAS. The results obtained by means of the VRS showed higher F-ratios (analysis of variance and Kruskall-Wallis H-test) than those obtained by means of the VAS. The VRS, which transfers a continuous feeling into a digital system, seems to augment artificially the measurement of effects produced by analgesics, and the VAS seems to assess more closely what a patient actually experiences with respect to change in pain intensities. The correlation between the two scales was highly significant (r = 0.81, P less than 0.001). The calculated regression line (y=-29.6 + 0.55-x) was not similar to the line of identity and showed much lower values for the VAS, supporting our interpretation. The distribution of the variances of the values obtained by means of both scales was not homogenous. This indicates that the homogeneity of the distribution of variances should always be checked and a Kruskall-Wallis H-test used, if they are inhomogenously distributed.

To assess which subjective scale, the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Borg CR10 (Borg) scale, or the Likert scale (LS), if any, is decidedly more reproducible and sensitive to change in the assessment of symptoms. Prospective clinical study. Exercise laboratory. Twenty-three physically active male subjects (mean +/- SD age of 30 +/- 4 years old) were recruited. Each subject attended the exercise laboratory on four occasions at intervals of 1 week. Three subjective scales were used: (1) the VAS (continuous scale); (2) the Borg scale (12 fixed points); and (3) the Likert scale (LS; 5 fixed points). Four identical submaximal tests were given (2 min at 60% maximum oxygen uptake [VO(2)max] and 6 min at 70% VO(2)max). Two tests were undertaken to assess the reproducibility of scores that were obtained with each subjective scale. Two other tests were undertaken to assess the sensitivity of each scale to a change in symptom perception: a double-blind treatment with propranolol, 80 mg, (ie, active therapy; to increase the sensation of breathlessness and general fatigue during exercise) or matching placebo. The subjective scale scores were measured at 1 min 30 s, 5 min 30 s, and 7 min 15 s of exercise. Reproducibility was defined as the proportion of total variance (ie, between-subject plus within-subject variance) explained by the between-subject variance given as a percentage. Sensitivity was defined as the effect of the active drug therapy over the variation within subjects. Overall, the VAS performed best in terms of reproducibility for breathlessness and general fatigue, with reproducibility coefficients as high as 78%. For sensitivity, the VAS was best for breathlessness (ratio, 2.7) and the Borg scale was most sensitive for general fatigue (ratio, 3.0). The relationships between the respective psychological and physiologic variables were reasonably stable throughout the testing procedure, with overall typical correlations of 0.73 to 0.82 This study suggests that subjective scales can reproducibly measure symptoms during steady-state exercise and can detect the effect of a drug intervention. The VAS and Borg scales appear to be the best subjective scales for this purpose.