Validation of Digital Visual Analog Scale Pain Scoring With a Traditional Paper-based Visual Analog Scale in Adults

被引:783
作者
Delgado, Domenica A. [1 ]
Lambert, Bradley S. [1 ,2 ]
Boutris, Nickolas [1 ]
McCulloch, Patrick C. [1 ]
Robbins, Andrew B. [2 ]
Moreno, Michael R. [1 ,2 ]
Harris, Joshua D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Houston Methodist Hosp, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Texas A&M Univ, College Stn, TX USA
来源
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS GLOBAL RESEARCH AND REVIEWS | 2018年 / 2卷 / 03期
关键词
D O I
10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00088
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]
Electronic medical records for the orthopaedic practice [J].
Alexander, Ian .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2007, (457) :114-119
[2]
Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of an Electronic Visual Analog Scale for Pain on a Touch Screen Tablet in Healthy Older Adults: A Clinical Trial [J].
Bird, Marie-Louise ;
Callisaya, Michele L. ;
Cannell, John ;
Gibbons, Timothy ;
Smith, Stuart T. ;
Ahuja, Kiran D. K. .
INTERACTIVE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2016, 5 (01) :13-20
[3]
Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain [J].
Boonstra, Anne M. ;
Schiphorst Preuper, Henrica R. ;
Reneman, Michiel F. ;
Posthumus, Jitze B. ;
Stewart, Roy E. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH, 2008, 31 (02) :165-169
[4]
Assessment of pain [J].
Breivik, H. ;
Borchgrevink, P. C. ;
Allen, S. M. ;
Rosseland, L. A. ;
Romundstad, L. ;
Hals, E. K. Breivik ;
Kvarstein, G. ;
Stubhaug, A. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2008, 101 (01) :17-24
[5]
Evaluating the effectiveness of visual analog scales - A web experiment [J].
Couper, MP ;
Tourangeau, R ;
Conrad, FG ;
Singer, E .
SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, 2006, 24 (02) :227-245
[6]
STUDIES WITH PAIN RATING-SCALES [J].
DOWNIE, WW ;
LEATHAM, PA ;
RHIND, VM ;
WRIGHT, V ;
BRANCO, JA ;
ANDERSON, JA .
ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 1978, 37 (04) :378-381
[7]
Clinically important changes in acute pain outcome measures: A validation study [J].
Farrar, JT ;
Berlin, JA ;
Strom, BL .
JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2003, 25 (05) :406-411
[8]
Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures [J].
Farrar, JT ;
Portenoy, RK ;
Berlin, JA ;
Kinman, JL ;
Strom, BL .
PAIN, 2000, 88 (03) :287-294
[9]
Measurement of pain: The psychometric properties of the Pain-O-Meter, a simple, inexpensive pain assessment tool that could change health care practices [J].
GastonJohansson, F .
JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 1996, 12 (03) :172-181
[10]
Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: a randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers [J].
Jamison, RN ;
Gracely, RH ;
Raymond, SA ;
Levine, JG ;
Marino, B ;
Herrmann, TJ ;
Daly, M ;
Fram, D ;
Katz, NP .
PAIN, 2002, 99 (1-2) :341-347