61
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validation of Digital Visual Analog Scale Pain Scoring With a Traditional Paper-based Visual Analog Scale in Adults

      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

          Background:

          The visual analog scale (VAS) is a validated, subjective measure for acute and chronic pain. Scores are recorded by making a handwritten mark on a 10-cm line that represents a continuum between “no pain” and “worst pain.”

          Methods:

          One hundred consecutive patients aged ≥18 years who presented with a chief complaint of pain were asked to record pain scores via a paper VAS and digitally via both the laptop computer and mobile phone. Ninety-eight subjects, 51 men (age, 44 ± 16 years) and 47 women (age, 46 ± 15 years), were included. A mixed-model analysis of covariance with the Bonferroni post hoc test was used to detect differences between the paper and digital VAS scores. A Bland–Altman analysis was used to test for instrument agreement between the platforms. The minimal clinically important difference was set at 1.4 cm (14% of total scale length) for detecting clinical relevance between the three VAS platforms. A paired one-tailed Student t-test was used to determine whether differences between the digital and paper measurement platforms exceeded 14% ( P < 0.05).

          Results:

          A significant difference in scores was found between the mobile phone–based (32.9% ± 0.4%) and both the laptop computer– and paper-based platforms (31.0% ± 0.4%, P < 0.01 for both). These differences were not clinically relevant (minimal clinically important difference <1.4 cm). No statistically significant difference was observed between the paper and laptop computer platforms. Measurement agreement was found between the paper- and laptop computer–based platforms (mean difference, 0.0% ± 0.5%; no proportional bias detected) but not between the paper- and mobile phone–based platforms (mean difference, 1.9% ± 0.5%; proportional bias detected).

          Conclusion:

          No clinically relevant difference exists between the traditional paper-based VAS assessment and VAS scores obtained from laptop computer– and mobile phone–based platforms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

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

          Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity.

          To determine the amount of change in pain severity, as measured by a visual analog scale, that constitutes a minimum clinically significant difference. Patients 18 years of age or older who presented with acute pain resulting from trauma were enrolled in this prospective, descriptive study. The setting was an urban county hospital emergency department with a Level 1 trauma center. In the course of a brief interview, patients were asked to indicate their current pain severity with a single mark through a standard 100-mm visual analog scale. At intervals of 20 minutes for the next 2 hours, patients were asked to repeat this measurement and, in addition, to contrast their present pain severity with that at the time of the previous measurement. They were to indicate whether they had "much less," "a little less," "about the same," "a little more," or "much more" pain. All contrasts were made without reference to prior visual analog scale measurements. A maximum of six measurements of pain change were recorded per patient. Measurements ended when the patient left the ED or when the patient reported a pain score of zero. The minimum clinically significant change in visual analog scale pain score was defined as the mean difference between current and preceding visual analog scale scores when the subject noted a little less or a little more pain. Forty-eight subjects were enrolled, and 248 pain contrasts were recorded. Of these contrasts, 41 were rated as a little less and 39 as a little more pain. The mean difference between current and preceding visual analog scale scores in these 80 contrasts was 13 mm (95% confidence interval, 10 to 17 mm). The minimum clinically significant change in patient pain severity measured with a 100-mm visual analog scale was 13 mm. Studies of pain experience that report less than a 13-mm change in pain severity, although statistically significant, may have no clinical importance.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Does the clinically significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores vary with gender, age, or cause of pain?

            Ann Kelly (1998)
            To determine the minimum clinically significant difference in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores for acute pain in the ED setting and to determine whether this difference varies with gender, age, or cause of pain. A prospective, descriptive study of 152 adult patients presenting to the ED with acute pain. At presentation and at 20-minute intervals to a maximum of three measurements, patients marked the level of their pain on a 100-mm, nonhatched VAS. At each follow-up they also gave a verbal rating of their pain as "a lot better," "much the same," "a little worse," or "much worse." The minimum clinically significant difference in VAS pain scores was defined as the mean difference between current and preceding scores when pain was reported as a little worse or a little better. Data were compared based on gender, age more than or less than 50 years, and traumatic vs nontraumatic causes of pain. The minimum clinically significant difference in VAS pain scores is 9 mm (95% CI, 6 to 13 mm). There is no statistically significant difference between the minimum clinically significant differences in VAS pain scores based on gender (p=0.172), age (p=0.782), or cause of pain (p=0.84). The minimum clinically significant difference in VAS pain scores was found to be 9 mm. Differences of less than this amount, even if statistically significant, are unlikely to be of clinical significance. No significant difference in minimum significant VAS scores was found between gender, age, and cause-of-pain groups.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales.

              Vertical and horizontal visual analogue scales have been compared in the measurement of pain. There was a good correlation between the 2 scales, but the scores from horizontal scales tended to be slightly lower than those from vertical scales.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev
                J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev
                JAAOS Glob Res Rev
                JAAOS Glob Res Rev
                Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global Research & Reviews
                Wolters Kluwer (Philadelphia, PA )
                2474-7661
                March 2018
                23 March 2018
                : 2
                : 3
                : e088
                Affiliations
                From Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX (Ms. Delgado, Dr. Lambert, Dr. Boutris, Dr. McCulloch, Dr. Moreno, and Dr. Harris), and Texas A&M University, College Station, TX (Dr. Lambert, Mr. Robbins, and Dr. Moreno).
                Article
                JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00088 00002
                10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00088
                6132313
                30211382
                25e643ea-eb9a-497b-a8f1-d996da94412b
                Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article