Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Numeric Rating Scale (numeric + rating_scale)
Selected AbstractsPain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scalesJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 7 2005Amelia Williamson MSc Aims and objectives., This review aims to explore the research available relating to three commonly used pain rating scales, the Visual Analogue Scale, the Verbal Rating Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale. The review provides information needed to understand the main properties of the scales. Background., Data generated from pain-rating scales can be easily misunderstood. This review can help clinicians to understand the main features of these tools and thus use them effectively. Method., A MedLine review via PubMed was carried out with no restriction of age of papers retrieved. Papers were examined for methodological soundness before being included. The search terms initially included pain rating scales, pain measurement, Visual Analogue Scale, VAS, Verbal Rating Scale, VRS, Numerical/numeric Rating Scale, NRS. The reference lists of retrieved articles were used to generate more papers and search terms. Only English Language papers were examined. Conclusions., All three pain-rating scales are valid, reliable and appropriate for use in clinical practice, although the Visual Analogue Scale has more practical difficulties than the Verbal Rating Scale or the Numerical Rating Scale. For general purposes the Numerical Rating Scale has good sensitivity and generates data that can be statistically analysed for audit purposes. Patients who seek a sensitive pain-rating scale would probably choose this one. For simplicity patients prefer the Verbal Rating Scale, but it lacks sensitivity and the data it produces can be misunderstood. Relevance to clinical practice., In order to use pain-rating scales well clinicians need to appreciate the potential for error within the tools, and the potential they have to provide the required information. Interpretation of the data from a pain-rating scale is not as straightforward as it might first appear. [source] Ability of Patients to Accurately Recall the Severity of Acute Painful EventsACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 3 2001Adam J. Singer MD Abstract. Objective: Pain studies require prospective patient enrollment to ensure accurate pain assessment. The authors correlated pain assessments of an acute painful episode over a one-week period and determined the accuracy of patient pain severity recall over time. Methods: This was a prospective, descriptive, longitudinal study. Participants were a convenience sample of 50 emergency department patients with acute pain resulting from injuries or painful invasive procedures. A trained research assistant administered a structured pain survey containing demographic and historical features to all patients. Patients sequentially assessed their pain severity using a vertical 100-mm visual analog scale marked "most pain" at the top, a verbal numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 100 from none to worst (NRS100), and a verbal numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 10 from none to worst (NRS10). Patients were contacted by phone and asked to reassess their initial pain severity one and seven days later using the two verbal numeric rating scales. Analysis of pain assessments using the various scales at the three time intervals was performed with Pearson's and Spearman's coefficients and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: There were 50 patients with a mean age of 41 years. Correlation between initial pain assessments on the three scales ranged from 0.83 to 0.92. Correlations between the initial and 24-hour assessments were NRS100-0.98 and NRS10-0.98. Correlations between the initial and one-week assessments were NRS100-0.96 and NRS10-0.97. Repeated-measures ANOVA showed no significant change in pain assessments over time for both verbal numeric scales. Conclusions: Pain severity assessments of acute painful events one and seven days later were similar and highly correlated with initial assessments using both verbal numeric scales. Patients accurately recall the severity of an acute painful episode for at least one week after its occurrence, which may allow retrospective pain assessments. [source] Room for improvement: nurses' and physicians' views of a post-operative pain management programACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 3 2010C. S. HARTOG Background: The practice of post-operative pain therapy continues to be a problem. We conducted a survey among nurses and physicians about their views of an established post-operative pain management program. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all nurses and physicians of nine surgical wards (general, trauma, cardio-thoracic and oromaxillofacial surgery and gynecology). Questions were developed from qualitative interviews with staff. Patient data were derived from a post-operative pain registry. Results: Seventy-eight physicians and nurses answered; the overall response rate was 23%. Post-operative pain therapy had high personal priority on an 11-point numeric rating scale (mean 9.08±1.27 standard deviation), but the success of pain management on the ward was rated as 7.32±1.37. Staff rating of success tended to correspond with patients' actual pain ratings. Knowledge of pain therapy was assessed as 6.85±1.82; nurses consistently rated levels higher than physicians. Staff over- or underestimated the painfulness of typical procedures and females rated procedures as more painful than men. There was considerable confusion about responsibilities and duties. 10.7% of staff perceived time delays exceeding 6 h between a request for acute pain services (APS) consultation and administration of medication to the patient. Invited comments suggested improvement in personnel education, team coordination, communication with patients and speed of action to increase the quality of pain therapy. Conclusion: Despite staff's high personal priority and well-established APS and pain management program, post-operative pain therapy still leaves room for improvement. Considerable confusion about responsibilities and duties underlines the importance of better organizational approaches. [source] Musculoskeletal Pain and Risk for Falls in Older Disabled Women Living in the CommunityJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 4 2002Suzanne G. Leveille PhD OBJECTIVES: To determine whether musculoskeletal pain increased risk for falls in older women with disabilities. DESIGN: Prospective population-based cohort study. SETTING: The city and county of the eastern area of Baltimore. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand two women aged 65 and older, participants in the Women's Health and Aging Study, representing the one-third of older women who were living at home with disabilities, followed semiannually for 3 years beginning in 1991. MEASUREMENTS: Pain was categorized into four groups according to severity and location. Widespread pain was defined as pain in the upper and lower extremities and in the axial skeletal region, with moderate to severe pain in at least one region (, 4 on a 10-point numeric rating scale, 10 = excruciating pain). Moderate to severe lower extremity pain that did not meet criteria for widespread pain was the next category. The reference category was no pain or mild pain in one site. The additional category of "other pain" was pain that did not fit into the other three groups. The occurrence of falls and fall-related injuries were assessed at each interview. RESULTS: Of the 940 women who participated in at least one follow-up examination, 39% fell in first year; of the survivors, 36% fell in Year 2, and 39% in Year 3. After adjusting for several major risk factors for falls, women with widespread pain had an increased likelihood of falling during follow-up (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25,2.21) compared with those with no or mild pain in only one musculoskeletal site. Women who had other musculoskeletal pain but not widespread pain or lower extremity pain also had an increased risk of falls (AOR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.02,1.82). Among women with musculoskeletal pain, risk for falls was lower in those who used daily analgesic medication. Risk for recurrent falls and self-reported fractures due to falls was also elevated in women with musculoskeletal pain, most consistently in women with widespread pain. CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal pain, particularly widespread pain, is a substantial risk factor for falls in older women with disabilities. These findings add an important dimension to our understanding of the multifactorial processes leading to falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 50:671,678, 2002. [source] Measuring irritable bowel syndrome patient-reported outcomes with an abdominal pain numeric rating scaleALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 11-12 2009B. SPIEGEL Summary Background, Controversy exists on how to measure patient-reported outcomes in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) clinical trials effectively. Pain numeric rating scales (NRS) are widely used in the non-IBS pain literature. The Food and Drug Administration has proposed using the NRS in IBS. Aim, To test the psychometrics of an abdominal pain NRS in IBS. Methods, We analysed data from a longitudinal cohort of Rome III IBS subjects. At entry, subjects completed a 10-point NRS, bowel symptoms, IBS severity measurements (IBS-SSS, FBDSI), health-related quality of life indices (IBS-QOL, EQ5D), and the Worker Productivity Activity Index (WPAI). We repeated assessments at 3 months along with a response scale to calculate the minimal clinically important difference. Results, There were 277 subjects (82% women; age = 42 ± 15) at baseline and 90 at 3 months. The NRS correlated cross-sectionally with IBS-SSS (r = 0.60; P < 0.0011), FBDSI (r = 0.49; P < 0.0001), IBS-QOL (r = 0.43; P < 0.0001), EQ5D (r = 0.48; P < 0.0001), presenteeism (r = 0.39; P < 0.0001), absenteeism (r = 0.17; P = 0.04) and distension (r = 0.46; P < 0.0001), but not stool frequency or form. The minimal clinically important difference was 2.2 points, correlating with a 29.5% reduction over time. Conclusions, An abdominal pain NRS exhibits excellent validity and can be readily interpreted with a minimal clinically important difference in patients with IBS. These data support the use of the NRS in IBS clinical trials. [source] Intradiscal High-Voltage, Long-Duration Pulsed Radiofrequency for Discogenic Pain: A Preliminary ReportPAIN MEDICINE, Issue 5 2006Alexandre Teixeira MD ABSTRACT Background., Intradiscal radiofrequency, with the electrode placed in the center of the nucleus pulposus, has been a controversial procedure in patients with discogenic pain. Possibly the effect has not been due to the production of heat, but to exposure to electric fields. Design., We have investigated the effect of high-voltage, long-duration intradiscal pulsed radiofrequency in patients with one-level discogenic low back pain, as confirmed by discography. Outcome Measure., The pain intensity score on a 0,10 numeric rating scale (NRS) was taken as outcome measure. Patients., Eight patients were reported. The mean duration of pain was 6.3 years (range 0.5,16, median 4). The mean NRS score was 7.75 (range 5,9). Disc height was reduced 60% in one patient and up to 30% in the others. Intervention., A 15-cm, 20-gauge needle with a 15-mm active tip was placed centrally in the disc. Pulsed radiofrequency was applied for 20 min at a setting of 2 × 20 ms/s and 60 V. Results., There was a very significant fall in the NRS scores over the first 3 months (P < 0.0001). On an individual basis, all patients had a fall of the NRS score of at least 4 points at the 3-month follow-up. A follow-up of 12.8 months (range 6,25, median 9) was available for five patients. All these patients are now pain free, except for one patient with an NRS score of 2. Conclusion., It is concluded that this method merits a controlled, prospective study. [source] Monitoring of sympathetic tone to assess postoperative pain: skin conductance vs surgical stress indexANAESTHESIA, Issue 7 2009T. Ledowski Summary The number of fluctuations in skin conductance per second has been described as a potential tool for monitoring postoperative pain. More recently, the surgical stress index has shown promising correlations with intra-operative painful stimuli. We compared both methods for their ability to assess postoperative pain, in 100 postoperative patients who were also asked to quantify their level of pain at different time points in the recovery room. The number of fluctuations per second and surgical stress index were significantly different between pain scoring , 5/10 and > 5/10 on a numeric rating scale (mean (SE) number of fluctuations per second 0.12 (0.02) vs 0.21 (0.03), respectively; p = 0.017, and surgical stress index 57 (1.4) vs 64 (1.9) points, respectively; p = 0.001). Both number of fluctuations in skin conductance per second and surgical stress index identified timepoints with moderate to severe pain with only moderate sensitivity and specificity. [source] Outcomes After Intravenous Opioids in Emergency Patients: A Prospective Cohort AnalysisACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 6 2009Alec B. O'Connor MD Abstract Objectives:, Pain management continues to be suboptimal in emergency departments (EDs). Several studies have documented failures in the processes of care, such as whether opioid analgesics were given. The objectives of this study were to measure the outcomes following administration of intravenous (IV) opioids and to identify clinical factors that may predict poor analgesic outcomes in these patients. Methods:, In this prospective cohort study, emergency patients were enrolled if they were prescribed IV morphine or hydromorphone (the most commonly used IV opioids in the study hospital) as their initial analgesic. Patients were surveyed at the time of opioid administration and 1 to 2 hours after the initial opioid dosage. They scored their pain using a verbal 0,10 pain scale. The following binary analgesic variables were primarily used to identify patients with poor analgesic outcomes: 1) a pain score reduction of less than 50%, 2) a postanalgesic pain score of 7 or greater (using the 0,10 numeric rating scale), and 3) the development of opioid-related side effects. Logistic regression analyses were used to study the effects of demographic, clinical, and treatment covariates on the outcome variables. Results:, A total of 2,414 were approached for enrollment, of whom 1,312 were ineligible (658 were identified more than 2 hours after IV opioid was administered and 341 received another analgesic before or with the IV opioid) and 369 declined to consent. A total of 691 patients with a median baseline pain score of 9 were included in the final analyses. Following treatment, 57% of the cohort failed to achieve a 50% pain score reduction, 36% had a pain score of 7 or greater, 48% wanted additional analgesics, and 23% developed opioid-related side effects. In the logistic regression analyses, the factors associated with poor analgesia (both <50% pain score reduction and postanalgesic pain score of ,7) were the use of long-acting opioids at home, administration of additional analgesics, provider concern for drug-seeking behavior, and older age. An initial pain score of 10 was also strongly associated with a postanalgesic pain score of ,7. African American patients who were not taking opioids at home were less likely to achieve a 50% pain score reduction than other patients, despite receiving similar initial and total equianalgesic dosages. None of the variables we assessed were significantly associated with the development of opioid-related side effects. Conclusions:, Poor analgesic outcomes were common in this cohort of ED patients prescribed IV opioids. Patients taking long-acting opioids, those thought to be drug-seeking, older patients, those with an initial pain score of 10, and possibly African American patients are at especially high risk of poor analgesia following IV opioid administration. [source] Co-Administration of Dextromethorphan and Morphine: Reduction of Post-Operative Pain and Lack of Influence on Morphine MetabolismBASIC AND CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY, Issue 2 2010Maciej Suski In a double-blind study, 60 patients with ASA physical status I,II were randomised into two groups. Group dextromethorphan (n = 30; age: 15.9 ± 2.4 years) was given oral dextromethorphan 30 or 45 mg 1 hr before surgery and 8, 20 and 32 hr after operation. Group placebo (n = 30; age: 16.5 ± 2.7 years) received placebo at identical times. Post-operative analgesic requirements were assessed using nurse-controlled analgesia system. Pain was assessed using numeric rating scale before first administration of morphine and at 2, 3, 4, 6, 24 and 48 hr after operation. Blood samples were taken 20 min. after the first use of morphine (within 1 hr after operation). The total use of analgesics during surgery was lower in the dextromethorphan group. The dose of morphine providing relief immediately after surgery, as well as total analgesic requirements in the first and second day after surgery did not differ between groups. Subjectively evaluated pain intensity score (numeric rating scale) was lower for the dextromethorphan patients in the first 4 hr, but not later after surgery. Plasma levels of morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide and morphine-3-glucuronide did not differ between groups. Dextromethorphan did not influence morphine glucuronidation, in terms of promotion of formation of any morphine glucuronides. In conclusion, in young patients subjected to spine surgery, addition of dextromethorphan to morphine reduced pain only in early post-operative period. In such patients, co-analgesic action of dextromethorphan was not associated with significant changes in plasma levels of morphine metabolites. [source] SMS pain diary: a method for real-time data capture of recurrent pain in childhoodACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 7 2010Gösta AlfvénArticle first published online: 5 MAR 2010 Abstract Objectives:, To capture recurrent pain in children aged 9,15 years reported by short message service (SMS) and to test the compliance of such reporting in a pilot study. Methods:, After instructions, 15 children reported their pain six times a day on SMS for a week and the compatibility of the reporting was evaluated. The pain was expressed and reported on three variables: intensity captured using a numeric rating scale (NRS-11), duration in minutes and a verbal pain-related disability scale with six alternatives (0,5). The validity of this scale was tested in 37 children, and the reliability in a test,retest procedure in 20 children. Results:, Good compliance reporting the three variables intensity and duration of pain as well as pain-related disability on SMS was indicated. Support for construct validity and reliability of the verbal instrument for pain-related disability was achieved. Conclusion:, The study supports the hypothesis that pain experience expressed as intensity, duration and pain-related disability can be captured in real time by SMS in an inexpensive and compliant way in children aged 9,15 years. Validity and reliability was indicated for the constructed verbal pain-related disability scale. Further studies are needed to further confirm these findings. [source] Ability of Patients to Accurately Recall the Severity of Acute Painful EventsACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 3 2001Adam J. Singer MD Abstract. Objective: Pain studies require prospective patient enrollment to ensure accurate pain assessment. The authors correlated pain assessments of an acute painful episode over a one-week period and determined the accuracy of patient pain severity recall over time. Methods: This was a prospective, descriptive, longitudinal study. Participants were a convenience sample of 50 emergency department patients with acute pain resulting from injuries or painful invasive procedures. A trained research assistant administered a structured pain survey containing demographic and historical features to all patients. Patients sequentially assessed their pain severity using a vertical 100-mm visual analog scale marked "most pain" at the top, a verbal numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 100 from none to worst (NRS100), and a verbal numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 10 from none to worst (NRS10). Patients were contacted by phone and asked to reassess their initial pain severity one and seven days later using the two verbal numeric rating scales. Analysis of pain assessments using the various scales at the three time intervals was performed with Pearson's and Spearman's coefficients and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: There were 50 patients with a mean age of 41 years. Correlation between initial pain assessments on the three scales ranged from 0.83 to 0.92. Correlations between the initial and 24-hour assessments were NRS100-0.98 and NRS10-0.98. Correlations between the initial and one-week assessments were NRS100-0.96 and NRS10-0.97. Repeated-measures ANOVA showed no significant change in pain assessments over time for both verbal numeric scales. Conclusions: Pain severity assessments of acute painful events one and seven days later were similar and highly correlated with initial assessments using both verbal numeric scales. Patients accurately recall the severity of an acute painful episode for at least one week after its occurrence, which may allow retrospective pain assessments. [source] A Novel Interdisciplinary Analgesic Program Reduces Pain and Improves Function in Older Adults After Orthopedic SurgeryJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 1 2009R. Sean Morrison MD OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of a multicomponent intervention on pain and function after orthopedic surgery. DESIGN: Controlled prospective propensity score,matched clinical trial. SETTING: New York City acute rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty-nine patients admitted to rehabilitation after hip fracture repair (n=51) or hip (n=64) or knee (n=134) arthroplasty. INTERVENTION: Pain assessment at rest and with physical therapy (PT) by staff using numeric rating scales (1 to 5). Physician protocols for standing analgesia and preemptive analgesia before PT were implemented on the intervention unit. Control unit patients received usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Pain, analgesic prescribing, gait speed, transfer time, and percentage of PT sessions completed during admission. Pain and difficulty walking at 6, 12, 18, and 24 weeks after discharge. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses intervention patients were significantly more likely than controls to report no or mild pain at rest (66% vs 49%, P=.004) and with PT (52% vs 38%, P=.02) on average for the first 7 days of rehabilitation, had faster 8-foot-walk times on Days 4 (9.3 seconds vs 13.2 seconds, P=.02) and 7 (6.9 vs 9.2 seconds, P=.02), received more analgesia (23.6 vs 15.6 mg of morphine sulfate equivalents per day, P<.001), were more likely to receive standing orders for analgesia (98% vs 48%, P<.001), and had significantly shorter lengths of stay (10.1 vs 11.3 days, P=.005). At 6 months, intervention patients were less likely than controls to report moderate to severe pain with walking (4% vs 15%, P=.02) and that pain did not interfere with walking (7% vs 18%, P=.004) and were less likely to be taking analgesics (35% vs 51%, P=.03). CONCLUSION: The intervention improved postoperative pain, reduced chronic pain, and improved function. [source] | ||||||||||