Dataset Information

Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rating scales like the visual analogue scale, VAS, and the verbal rating scale, VRS, are often used for pain assessments both in clinical work and in research, despite the lack of a gold standard. Interchangeability of recorded pain intensity captured in the two scales has been discussed earlier, but not in conjunction with taking the influence of pain etiology into consideration.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, patients with their pain classified according to its etiology (chronic/idiopathic, nociceptive and neuropathic pain) were consecutively recruited for self-assessment of their actual pain intensity using a continuous VAS, 0-100, and a discrete five-category VRS. The data were analyzed with a non-parametric statistical method, suitable for comparison of scales with different numbers of response alternatives.

Results

An overlapping of the VAS records relative the VRS categories was seen in all pain groups. Cut-off positions for the VAS records related to the VRS categories were found lower in patients with nociceptive pain relative patients suffering from chronic/idiopathic and neuropathic pain. When comparing the VAS records transformed into an equidistant five-category scale with the VRS records, systematic disagreements between the scales was shown in all groups. Furthermore, in the test-retest a low percentage of the patients agreed to the same pain level on the VAS while the opposite hold for the VRS.

Conclusion

The pain intensity assessments on VAS and VRS are in this study, not interchangeable due to overlap of pain records between the two scales, systematic disagreements when comparing the two scales and a low percentage intra-scale agreement. Furthermore, the lower VAS cut-off positions relative the VRS labels indicate different meaning of the rated pain intensity depending on pain etiology. It is also indicated that the scales have non-linear properties and that the two scales probably have different interpretation. Our findings are in favor of using the VRS in pain intensity assessments but if still the VAS is preferred, the VAS data should be analyzed as continuous using statistical methods suitable for ordinal data. Furthermore, our findings indicate a risk to over or under estimate the patient's perceived pain when interpreting condensed VAS data.

SUBMITTER: Lund I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1274324 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups.

Lund Iréne I Lundeberg Thomas T Sandberg Louise L Budh Cecilia Norrbrink CN Kowalski Jan J Svensson Elisabeth E

BMC medical research methodology 20051004

<h4>Background</h4>Rating scales like the visual analogue scale, VAS, and the verbal rating scale, VRS, are often used for pain assessments both in clinical work and in research, despite the lack of a gold standard. Interchangeability of recorded pain intensity captured in the two scales has been discussed earlier, but not in conjunction with taking the influence of pain etiology into consideration.<h4>Methods</h4>In this cross-sectional study, patients with their pain classified according to it ...[more]

PMID: 16202149

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo assess the interchangeability of various existing answering scales within the subjective part of the Constant-Murley Score (CMS) and to determine the effect of the different answering scales on the inter- and intraobserver reliability.MethodsIn this prospective, single-center, cross-sectional trial, patients with shoulder problems were included from June to September 2018. Subjects recruited were 18 years or older, presented various shoulder complaints, e.g., diagnosis of osteoarthritis, subacromial pain syndrome, rotator cuff or biceps tendon problems, or frozen shoulder. An extended version of the CMS was prepared including the same questions multiple times but with varying answer scales. Six versions were made with random order of the questions. The answering scales were a verbal and paper based visual analog scale (VAS), smiley face scale, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and categories. Internal consistency of the various CMS, Spearman correlation coefficients, intraobserver, and interobserver agreement was assessed (ICC).ResultsIn total, 93 patients were included. The total CMS using the paper-based VAS, smiley face score, and NRS were 46.9 ± 19.4, 45.2 ± 18.5, and 45.0 ± 18.7. Correlations of the total scores of the different versions varied from 0.98 to 0.99. CMS-category versus CMS-smiley face score and CMS-category versus CMS-NRS pain were significantly different (P = .02 and P = .01). Good internal consistency (0.76-0.79) and acceptable inter- and intraobserver reliability were found (ICC: 0.89-0.97, 0.98-0.99; P < .001).ConclusionsThe different answering scales for the subjective subscales within the CMS for pain, work, and recreational activity were not interchangeable on item level and significantly influenced the total CMS score. Differences were below the smallest detectable change and interpreted as not clinically relevant. Particularly on item level, data from different studies cannot be pooled and compared when different answering scales are being used. The inter- and intraobserver reliability were excellent.Level of evidenceLevel I, prospective cross-sectional study.

Project description:Upper and lower gastrointestinal dysautonomia symptoms (GIDS)--sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation are common in Parkinson's disease (PD) and often socially as well as physically disabling for patients. Available invasive quantitative measures for assessing these symptoms and their response to therapy are time-consuming, require specialized equipment, can cause patient discomfort and present patients with risk. The Movement Disorders Society commissioned a task force to assess available clinical rating scales, critique their clinimetric properties, and make recommendations regarding their clinical utility. Six clinical researchers and a biostatistician systematically searched the literature for scales of sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation, evaluated the scales' previous use, performance parameters, and quality of validation data (if available). A scale was designated "Recommended" if the scale was used in clinical studies beyond the group that developed it, has been specifically used in PD reports, and clinimetric studies have established that it is a valid, reliable, and sensitive. "Suggested" scales met at least part of the above criteria, but fell short of meeting all. Based on the systematic review, scales for individual symptoms of sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation were identified along with three global scales that include these symptoms in the context of assessing dysautonomia or nonmotor symptoms. Three sialorrhea scales met criteria for Suggested: Drooling Severity and Frequency Scale (DSFS), Drooling Rating Scale, and Sialorrhea Clinical Scale for PD (SCS-PD). Two dysphagia scales, the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire (SDQ) and Dysphagia-Specific Quality of Life (SWAL-QOL), met criteria for Suggested. Although Rome III constipation module is widely accepted in the gastroenterology community, and the earlier version from the Rome II criteria has been used in a single study of PD patients, neither met criteria for Suggested or Recommended. Among the global scales, the Scales for Outcomes in PD-Autonomic (SCOPA-AUT) and Nonmotor Symptoms Questionnaire for PD (NMSQuest) both met criteria for Recommended, and the Nonmotor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) met criteria for Suggested; however, none specifically focuses on the target gastrointestinal symptoms (sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation) of this report. A very small number of rating scales have been applied to studies of gastrointestinal-related dysautonomia in PD. Only two scales met "Recommended" criteria and neither focuses specifically on the symptoms of sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation. Further scale testing in PD among the scales that focus on these symptoms is warranted, and no new scales are needed until the available scales are fully tested clinimetrically.

Project description:Rating scales are popular methods for generating quantitative data directly by persons rather than automated technologies. But scholars increasingly challenge their foundations. This article contributes epistemological and methodological analyses of the processes involved in person-generated quantification. They are crucial for measurement because data analyses can reveal information about study phenomena only if relevant properties were encoded systematically in the data. The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) is applied to explore psychological and social-science concepts of measurement and quantification, including representational measurement theory, psychometric theories and their precursors in psychophysics. These are compared to theories from metrology specifying object-dependence of measurement processes and subject-independence of outcomes as key criteria, which allow tracing data to the instances measured and the ways they were quantified. Separate histories notwithstanding, the article's basic premise is that general principles of scientific measurement and quantification should apply to all sciences. It elaborates principles by which these metrological criteria can be implemented also in psychology and social sciences, while considering their research objects' peculiarities. Application of these principles is illustrated by quantifications of individual-specific behaviors ('personality'). The demands rating methods impose on data-generating persons are deconstructed and compared with the demands involved in other quantitative methods (e.g., ethological observations). These analyses highlight problematic requirements for raters. Rating methods sufficiently specify neither the empirical study phenomena nor the symbolic systems used as data nor rules of assignment between them. Instead, pronounced individual differences in raters' interpretation and use of items and scales indicate considerable subjectivity in data generation. Together with recoding scale categories into numbers, this introduces a twofold break in the traceability of rating data, compromising interpretability of findings. These insights question common reliability and validity concepts for ratings and provide novel explanations for replicability problems. Specifically, rating methods standardize only data formats but not the actual data generation. Measurement requires data generation processes to be adapted to the study phenomena's properties and the measurement-executing persons' abilities and interpretations, rather than to numerical outcome formats facilitating statistical analyses. Researchers must finally investigate how people actually generate ratings to specify the representational systems underlying rating data.

Dataset Information

Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure