Validation of a Verbally Administered Numerical Rating Scale of Acute Pain for Use in the Emergency Department
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 1 April 2003
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Academic Emergency Medicine
- Vol. 10 (4) , 390-392
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb01355.x
Abstract
Objectives: Verbally administered numerical rating scales (NRSs) from 0 to 10 are often used to measure pain, but they have not been validated in the emergency department (ED) setting. The authors wished to assess the comparability of the NRS and visual analog scale (VAS) as measures of acute pain, and to identify the minimum clinically significant difference in pain that could be detected on the NRS. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of a convenience sample of adults presenting with acute pain to an urban ED. Patients verbally rated pain intensity as an integer from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10 = worst possible pain), and marked a 10-cm horizontal VAS bounded by these descriptors. VAS and NRS data were obtained at presentation, 30 minutes later, and 60 minutes later. At 30 and 60 minutes, patients were asked whether their pain was “much less,”“a little less,”“about the same,”“a little more,” or “much more.” Differences between consecutive pairs of measurements on the VAS and NRS obtained at 30-minute intervals were calculated for each of the five categories of pain descriptor. The association between VAS and NRS scores was expressed as a correlation coefficient. The VAS scores were regressed on the NRS scores in order to assess the equivalence of the measures. The mean changes associated with descriptors “a little less” or “a little more” were combined to define the minimum clinically significant difference in pain measured on the VAS and NRS. Results: Of 108 patients entered, 103 provided data at 30 minutes and 86 at 60 minutes. NRS scores were strongly correlated to VAS scores at all time periods (r= 0.94, 95% CI = 0.93 to 0.95). The slope of the regression line was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.06) and the y-intercept was −0.34 (95% CI =−0.67 to −0.01). The minimum clinically significant difference in pain was 1.3 (95% CI = 1.0 to 1.5) on the NRS and 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1 to 1.7) on the VAS. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the verbally administered NRS can be substituted for the VAS in acute pain measurement.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Does the Addition of Parenteral Opiate Premedication Increase Risk for Complications When Combined with Methohexital for Moderate Procedural Sedation in the ED?Academic Emergency Medicine, 2002
- Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scaleAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 2001
- Reliability of the Visual Analog Scale for Measurement of Acute PainAcademic Emergency Medicine, 2001
- The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of painEmergency Medicine Journal, 2001
- A Comparison of Pain Rating Scales by Sampling From Clinical Trial DataThe Clinical Journal of Pain, 2000
- Does the Clinically Significant Difference in Visual Analog Scale Pain Scores Vary with Gender, Age, or Cause of Pain?Academic Emergency Medicine, 1998
- Comparative study of methods of measuring acute pain intensity in an EDThe American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 1998
- The Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Physician–assigned Visual Analog Pain ScoresAcademic Emergency Medicine, 1996
- A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scalesPain, 1994