Dataset Information

Interchangeability of Diverse Analog Scales Used Within the Constant-Murley Score.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To 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.

Methods

In 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).

Results

In 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).

Conclusions

The 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 evidence

Level I, prospective cross-sectional study.

SUBMITTER: Hollman F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8129441 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe results of clinical trials should be assessed for both statistical significance and importance of observed effects to patients. Minimal important difference (MID) is a threshold denoting a difference that is important to patients. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a threshold above which patients feel well.ObjectiveTo determine MID and PASS for common outcome instruments in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS).MethodsWe used data from the FIMPACT trial, a randomised controlled trial of treatment for SAPS that included 193 patients. The outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity, both measured with the 0-100?mm visual analogue scale (VAS), the Constant-Murley score (CS), and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). The transition question was a five-point global rating of change. We used three anchor-based methods to determine the MID for improvement: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change and the mean change methods. For the PASS, we used the ROC and 75th percentile methods and calculated estimates using two different anchor question thresholds.ResultsDifferent MID methods yielded different estimates. The ROC method yielded the smallest estimates for MID: 20?mm for shoulder pain on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST, with good to excellent discrimination (areas under curve (AUCs) from 0.86 to 0.94). We could not establish a reliable MID for pain at rest. The PASS estimates were consistent between methods. The ROC method PASS thresholds using a conservative anchor question threshold were 2?mm for pain at rest, 9?mm for pain on activity, 80 points for CS and 11 points for SST, with AUCs from 0.74 to 0.83.ConclusionWe recommend the smallest estimate from different methods as the MID, because it is very unlikely that changes smaller than the smallest MID estimate are important to patients: 20?mm for pain VAS on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST. We recommend PASS estimates of 9?mm for pain on arm activity, 80 points for CS, and 11 points for SST.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00428870 (first registered January 29, 2007).

Project description:BackgroundRating 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsAn 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.ConclusionThe 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.