University of Health Sciences, Istanbul Training and Research Hospital, Emergency Department, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Duzce University, School of Medicine, Emergency Department, Duzce, Turkey.
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;36(4):707-714. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.008. Epub 2018 Jan 6.
The study analysed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to determine: 1. Were the compliance and usability different among scales? 2. Were any of the scales superior over the other(s) for clinical use?
A systematic review of currently published studies was performed following standard guidelines. Online database searches were performed for clinical trials published before November 2017, on the comparison of the pain scores in adults and preferences of the specific patient groups. A literature search via electronic databases was carried out for the last fifteen years on English Language papers. The search terms initially included pain rating scales, pain measurement, pain intensity, VAS, VRS, and NRS. Papers were examined for methodological soundness before being included. Data were independently extracted by two blinded reviewers. Studies were also assessed for bias using the Cochrane criteria.
The initial data search yielded 872 potentially relevant studies; of these, 853 were excluded for some reason. The main reason for exclusion (33.7%) was that irrelevance to comparison of pain scales and scores, followed by pediatric studies (32.1%). Finally, 19 underwent full-text review, and were analysed for the study purposes. Studies were of moderate (n=12, 63%) to low (n=7, 37%) quality.
All three scales are valid, reliable and appropriate for use in clinical practice, although the VAS is more difficulties than the others. For general purposes the NRS has good sensitivity and generates data that can be analysed for audit purposes.
本研究通过分析视觉模拟评分法(VAS)、语言等级评分法(VRS)和数字等级评分法(NRS)来确定:1. 这些评分法的依从性和易用性是否存在差异?2. 对于临床应用,哪种评分法更具优势?
本研究遵循标准指南,对目前已发表的研究进行了系统评价。在 2017 年 11 月之前,对在线数据库进行了检索,以查找比较成年人疼痛评分和特定患者群体偏好的临床试验。对过去 15 年的英文文献进行了电子数据库检索。最初的检索词包括疼痛评分量表、疼痛测量、疼痛强度、VAS、VRS 和 NRS。在纳入之前,对论文进行了方法学评估。数据由两名盲审员独立提取。使用 Cochrane 标准评估研究的偏倚。
最初的数据搜索产生了 872 项潜在相关研究;其中,由于某种原因排除了 853 项。排除的主要原因(33.7%)是与疼痛量表和评分的比较不相关,其次是儿科研究(32.1%)。最后,有 19 项研究进行了全文审查,并根据研究目的进行了分析。研究质量为中等(n=12,63%)至低等(n=7,37%)。
所有三种量表都是有效的、可靠的,适用于临床实践,尽管 VAS 比其他量表更难。对于一般用途,NRS 具有良好的敏感性,并能生成可用于审核目的的数据。