Suppr超能文献

比较通过语言评定量表和数字评定量表对疼痛严重程度进行的量化。

Comparing quantification of pain severity by verbal rating and numeric rating scales.

作者信息

Dijkers Marcel

机构信息

Rehabilitation Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave Levy Place, Box 1240, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA.

出版信息

J Spinal Cord Med. 2010;33(3):232-42. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2010.11689700.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Researchers have reported widely varying correlations among the 3 main instruments used to quantify pain severity, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), both at the level of groups and at the level of individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparability of reports of pain severity using a VRS and a NRS in a spinal cord injury (SCI) sample.

METHODS

Data were taken from a longitudinal observational study. Patients were 168 individuals with new traumatic SCI admitted for inpatient rehabilitation who completed the VRS and NRS multiple times, each time for multiple pains as appropriate.

RESULTS

For 1114 ratings of pain, VRS and corresponding NRS ratings were correlated weakly (Spearman correlation, rho = 0.38). For 36 individuals with at least 10 completions of paired VRS and NRS, rho ranged from -0.55 to 0.76. Variation in NRS rating for each VRS adjective was reduced by about 25% when between-patient variation was eliminated. Mean NRS ratings by VRS adjective, for patients who had used each of at least 2 adjectives at least 5 times each, showed large differences in mean NRS scores between individuals using the same VRS adjective.

CONCLUSION

There are considerable differences between individuals in how NRS and VRS are used; there also seem to be individuals whose understanding of the meaning of the VRS adjectives is completely different from what was assumed by the creators of this VRS. Both VRS and NRS data must be used with extreme caution by SCI clinicians and researchers.

摘要

背景

研究人员报告称,用于量化疼痛严重程度的3种主要工具,即视觉模拟评分法(VAS)、语言评定量表(VRS)和数字评定量表(NRS),在群体层面和个体层面的相关性差异很大。

目的

评估在脊髓损伤(SCI)样本中使用VRS和NRS报告疼痛严重程度的可比性。

方法

数据取自一项纵向观察性研究。患者为168名因新发性创伤性SCI入院接受住院康复治疗的个体,他们多次完成VRS和NRS,每次针对多种疼痛进行评估。

结果

对于1114次疼痛评分,VRS评分与相应的NRS评分呈弱相关性(Spearman相关性,rho = 0.38)。对于36名至少完成10次配对VRS和NRS评估的个体,rho值范围为-0.55至0.76。当消除患者间差异时,每个VRS形容词对应的NRS评分变化减少了约25%。对于每个至少使用过2个形容词且每个形容词至少使用5次的患者,按VRS形容词划分的平均NRS评分显示,使用相同VRS形容词的个体之间的平均NRS得分存在很大差异。

结论

个体在使用NRS和VRS的方式上存在相当大的差异;似乎也有一些个体对VRS形容词含义的理解与该VRS的创建者所设想的完全不同。SCI临床医生和研究人员在使用VRS和NRS数据时都必须极其谨慎。

相似文献

1
Comparing quantification of pain severity by verbal rating and numeric rating scales.
J Spinal Cord Med. 2010;33(3):232-42. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2010.11689700.
2
Pain Intensity Assessment Scales for Dermatologic Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review.
Dermatol Surg. 2022 Feb 1;48(2):232-238. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000003353.
6
The validity of pain intensity measures: what do the NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R measure?
Scand J Pain. 2018 Jan 26;18(1):99-107. doi: 10.1515/sjpain-2018-0012.
8
9
A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data.
Clin J Pain. 2000 Mar;16(1):22-8. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200003000-00005.

引用本文的文献

4
Pain medication misuse in the South African spinal cord injury context.
Health SA. 2024 Jan 31;29:2377. doi: 10.4102/hsag.v29i0.2377. eCollection 2024.
8
The presence of pain in community-dwelling South African manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury.
S Afr J Physiother. 2022 Feb 22;78(1):1600. doi: 10.4102/sajp.v78i1.1600. eCollection 2022.
10
Validity and Utility of Four Pain Intensity Measures for Use in International Research.
J Pain Res. 2021 Apr 21;14:1129-1139. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S303305. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

3
The international spinal cord injury pain basic data set.
Spinal Cord. 2008 Dec;46(12):818-23. doi: 10.1038/sc.2008.64. Epub 2008 Jun 3.
5
Classification and measurement of pain in the spinal cord-injured population.
Spinal Cord. 2008 Jan;46(1):2-10. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102137. Epub 2007 Oct 30.
8
Postoperative pain intensity assessment: a comparison of four scales in Chinese adults.
Pain Med. 2007 Apr;8(3):223-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00296.x.
9
Reliability of the Bryce/Ragnarsson spinal cord injury pain taxonomy.
J Spinal Cord Med. 2006;29(2):118-32. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2006.11753865.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验