TY - JOUR
T1 - Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults
T2 - A systematic literature review
AU - Hjermstad, Marianne Jensen
AU - Fayers, Peter M.
AU - Haugen, Dagny F.
AU - Caraceni, Augusto
AU - Hanks, Geoffrey W.
AU - Loge, Jon H.
AU - Fainsinger, Robin
AU - Aass, Nina
AU - Kaasa, Stein
N1 - Disclosures and Acknowledgments
The EPCRC is funded by the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme (contract no LSHC-CT-2006-037777) with the overall aim to improve treatment of pain, depression, and fatigue through translation research. Core scientific group/work package leaders: Stein Kaasa (project coordinator), Frank Skorpen, Marianne Jensen Hjermstad, and Jon Håvard Loge, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU); Geoffrey Hanks, University of Bristol; Augusto Caraceni and Franco De Conno, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan; Irene Higginson, King’s College London; Florian Strasser, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen; Lukas Radbruch, RWTH Aachen University; Kenneth Fearon, University of Edinburgh; Hellmut Samonigg, Medical University of Graz; Ketil Bø, Trollhetta AS, Norway; Irene Rech-Weichselbraun, Bender MedSystems GmbH, Austria; Odd Erik Gundersen, Verdande Technology AS, Norway. Scientific advisory group: Neil Aaronson, The Netherlands Cancer Institute; Vickie Baracos and Robin Fainsinger, University of Alberta; Patrick C. Stone, St. George’s University of London; Mari Lloyd-Williams, University of Liverpool. Project management: Stein Kaasa, Ola Dale, and Dagny F. Haugen, NTNU.
PY - 2011/6
Y1 - 2011/6
N2 - Context: The use of unidimensional pain scales such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is recommended for assessment of pain intensity (PI). A literature review of studies specifically comparing the NRS, VRS, and/or VAS for unidimensional self-report of PI was performed as part of the work of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative on pain assessment. Objectives: To investigate the use and performance of unidimensional pain scales, with specific emphasis on the NRSs. Methods: A systematic search was performed, including citations through April 2010. All abstracts were evaluated by two persons according to specified criteria. Results: Fifty-four of 239 papers were included. Postoperative PI was most frequently studied; six studies were in cancer. Eight versions of the NRS (NRS-6 to NRS-101) were used in 37 studies; a total of 41 NRSs were tested. Twenty-four different descriptors (15 for the NRSs) were used to anchor the extremes. When compared with the VAS and VRS, NRSs had better compliance in 15 of 19 studies reporting this, and were the recommended tool in 11 studies on the basis of higher compliance rates, better responsiveness and ease of use, and good applicability relative to VAS/VRS. Twenty-nine studies gave no preference. Many studies showed wide distributions of NRS scores within each category of the VRSs. Overall, NRS and VAS scores corresponded, with a few exceptions of systematically higher VAS scores. Conclusion: NRSs are applicable for unidimensional assessment of PI in most settings. Whether the variability in anchors and response options directly influences the numerical scores needs to be empirically tested. This will aid in the work toward a consensus-based, standardized measure.
AB - Context: The use of unidimensional pain scales such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is recommended for assessment of pain intensity (PI). A literature review of studies specifically comparing the NRS, VRS, and/or VAS for unidimensional self-report of PI was performed as part of the work of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative on pain assessment. Objectives: To investigate the use and performance of unidimensional pain scales, with specific emphasis on the NRSs. Methods: A systematic search was performed, including citations through April 2010. All abstracts were evaluated by two persons according to specified criteria. Results: Fifty-four of 239 papers were included. Postoperative PI was most frequently studied; six studies were in cancer. Eight versions of the NRS (NRS-6 to NRS-101) were used in 37 studies; a total of 41 NRSs were tested. Twenty-four different descriptors (15 for the NRSs) were used to anchor the extremes. When compared with the VAS and VRS, NRSs had better compliance in 15 of 19 studies reporting this, and were the recommended tool in 11 studies on the basis of higher compliance rates, better responsiveness and ease of use, and good applicability relative to VAS/VRS. Twenty-nine studies gave no preference. Many studies showed wide distributions of NRS scores within each category of the VRSs. Overall, NRS and VAS scores corresponded, with a few exceptions of systematically higher VAS scores. Conclusion: NRSs are applicable for unidimensional assessment of PI in most settings. Whether the variability in anchors and response options directly influences the numerical scores needs to be empirically tested. This will aid in the work toward a consensus-based, standardized measure.
KW - Numerical Rating Scale
KW - Pain assessment
KW - pain intensity
KW - review
KW - Verbal Rating Scale
KW - Visual Analogue Scale
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957652902&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016
DO - 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016
M3 - Review article
C2 - 21621130
AN - SCOPUS:79957652902
VL - 41
SP - 1073
EP - 1093
JO - Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
JF - Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
SN - 0885-3924
IS - 6
ER -