JAAOS Global Research and Reviews · 2018 · 1.2K citations · 15 references
NursingPhysical MedicinePain ManagementPain MedicinePsychometricsPain AssessmentPain MeasurementPain PerceptionPsychological TestingInterrater AgreementPain Assessment ToolsPain Measurement ScalesPain Rating ScalesPain ScalesPain ScoresPain Severity ScalesPaired T-test
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.
15
Studies with pain rating scales.
Walker Downie, P A Leatham, V M Rhind et al. · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · 1978 · 2K citations
Clinical Significance of Reported Changes in Pain Severity☆☆☆★
Knox H. Todd, Kathleen G Funk, Joseph P Funk et al. · Annals of Emergency Medicine · 1996 · 1.1K citations
Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures
John T. Farrar, Russell K. Portenoy, Jesse A. Berlin et al. · Pain · 2000 · 1.1K citations
Anne M. Boonstra, Henrica R. Schiphorst Preuper, Michiel F. Reneman et al. · International Journal of Rehabilitation Research · 2008 · 1K citations
Medicine, Rehabilitation Medicine, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation +16
Robert Z. Tashjian, Julia Deloach, Christina A. Porucznik et al. · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · 2009 · 661 citations