39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cut-Off Points for Mild, Moderate, and Severe Pain on the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Variability and Influence of Sex and Catastrophizing

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives: The 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is often used in pain management. The aims of our study were to determine the cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, to measure the variability of the optimal cut-off points, and to determine the influence of patients’ catastrophizing and their sex on these cut-off points.

          Methods: 2854 patients were included. Pain was assessed by the NRS, functioning by the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and catastrophizing by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Cut-off point schemes were tested using ANOVAs with and without using the PSC scores or sex as co-variates and with the interaction between CP scheme and PCS score and sex, respectively. The variability of the optimal cut-off point schemes was quantified using bootstrapping procedure.

          Results and conclusion: The study showed that NRS scores ≤ 5 correspond to mild, scores of 6–7 to moderate and scores ≥8 to severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning. Bootstrapping analysis identified this optimal NRS cut-off point scheme in 90% of the bootstrapping samples. The interpretation of the NRS is independent of sex, but seems to depend on catastrophizing. In patients with high catastrophizing tendency, the optimal cut-off point scheme equals that for the total study sample, but in patients with a low catastrophizing tendency, NRS scores ≤ 3 correspond to mild, scores of 4–6 to moderate and scores ≥7 to severe pain in terms of interference with functioning. In these optimal cut-off schemes, NRS scores of 4 and 5 correspond to moderate interference with functioning for patients with low catastrophizing tendency and to mild interference for patients with high catastrophizing tendency. Theoretically one would therefore expect that among the patients with NRS scores 4 and 5 there would be a higher average PDI score for those with low catastrophizing than for those with high catastrophizing. However, we found the opposite. The fact that we did not find the same optimal CP scheme in the subgroups with lower and higher catastrophizing tendency may be due to chance variability.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale.

          The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS; Sullivan et al., Psychol. Assess. 7, 524-532, 1995) has recently been developed to assess three components of catastrophizing: rumination, magnification, and helplessness. We conducted three studies to evaluate the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the PCS. In Study I, we conducted principal-components analysis with oblique rotation to replicate the three factors of the PCS. Gender differences on the original PCS subscales were also analyzed. In Study II, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the adequacy of fit of four alternative models. We also evaluated evidence for concurrent and discriminant validity. In Study III, we evaluated the ability of the PCS and subscales to differentiate between the responses of clinic (students seeking treatment) and nonclinic undergraduate samples. Also, in the clinic sample, we evaluated evidence of concurrent and predictive validity for the PCS. The internal consistency reliability indices for the total PCS and subscales were examined in all three studies. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A systematic literature review of 10 years of research on sex/gender and experimental pain perception - part 1: are there really differences between women and men?

            The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and critically appraise the results of 10 years of human laboratory research on pain and sex/gender. An electronic search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and conducted in multiple databases. A total of 172 articles published between 1998 and 2008 were retrieved, analyzed, and synthesized. The first set of results (122 articles), which is presented in this paper, examined sex difference in the perception of laboratory-induced thermal, pressure, ischemic, muscle, electrical, chemical, and visceral pain in healthy subjects. This review suggests that females (F) and males (M) have comparable thresholds for cold and ischemic pain, while pressure pain thresholds are lower in F than M. There is strong evidence that F tolerate less thermal (heat, cold) and pressure pain than M but it is not the case for tolerance to ischemic pain, which is comparable in both sexes. The majority of the studies that measured pain intensity and unpleasantness showed no sex difference in many pain modalities. In summary, 10 years of laboratory research have not been successful in producing a clear and consistent pattern of sex differences in human pain sensitivity, even with the use of deep, tonic, long-lasting stimuli, which are known to better mimic clinical pain. Whether laboratory studies in healthy subjects are the best paradigm to investigate sex differences in pain perception is open to question and should be discussed with a view to enhancing the clinical relevance of these experiments and developing new research avenues. Copyright © 2011 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data.

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                30 September 2016
                2016
                : 7
                : 1466
                Affiliations
                [1] 1‘Revalidatie Friesland’ Centre for Rehabilitation Beetsterzwaag, Netherlands
                [2] 2Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen Groningen, Netherlands
                [3] 3Adelante Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology Hoensbroek, Netherlands
                [4] 4Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, CAPHRI Research School, Maastricht University Maastricht, Netherlands
                [5] 5Faculty of Health and Technology, Zuyd University for Applied Sciences Heerlen, Netherlands
                [6] 6Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, MGG Medical Centre Alkmaar and Gemini Hospital Den Helder Alkmaar, Netherlands
                [7] 7Rijndam Rehabilitation Institute Rotterdam, Netherlands
                [8] 8Roessingh Research and Development, University of Twente Enschede, Netherlands
                [9] 9Department of Rehabilitation, Centre for Rehabilitation, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen Groningen, Netherlands
                Author notes

                Edited by: Lorys Castelli, University of Turin, Italy

                Reviewed by: Diana M. E. Torta, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium; Gerrit Hirschfeld, Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences, Germany

                *Correspondence: Anne M. Boonstra a.m.boonstra@ 123456revalidatie-friesland.nl

                This article was submitted to Psychology for Clinical Settings, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01466
                5043012
                27746750
                f321e62d-f431-44fe-9167-1987746fc009
                Copyright © 2016 Boonstra, Stewart, Köke, Oosterwijk, Swaan, Schreurs and Schiphorst Preuper.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 31 May 2016
                : 12 September 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 26, Pages: 9, Words: 6650
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                musculoskeletal pain,numeric rating scale,pain interference,classification,chronic pain

                Comments

                Comment on this article