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
[11]
Does the clinically significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores vary with gender, age, or cause of pain? [J].
Kelly, AM .
ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1998, 5 (11) :1086-1090
[12]
Portable mood mapping: the validity and reliability of analog scale displays for mood assessment via hand-held computer [J].
Kreindler, D ;
Levitt, A ;
Woolridge, N ;
Lumsden, CJ .
PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 2003, 120 (02) :165-177
[13]
CLINICAL-APPLICATIONS OF VISUAL ANALOG SCALES - A CRITICAL-REVIEW [J].
MCCORMACK, HM ;
HORNE, DJD ;
SHEATHER, S .
PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE, 1988, 18 (04) :1007-1019
[14]
VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL VISUAL ANALOG SCALES [J].
SCOTT, J ;
HUSKISSON, EC .
ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 1979, 38 (06) :560-560
[15]
Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease [J].
Tashjian, Robert Z. ;
Deloach, Julia ;
Porucznik, Christina A. ;
Powell, Amy P. .
JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2009, 18 (06) :927-932
[16]
Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity [J].
Todd, KH ;
Funk, KG ;
Funk, JP ;
Bonacci, R .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1996, 27 (04) :485-489
[17]
Wolfe F, 2007, J RHEUMATOL, V34, P1674
[18]
Pain outcomes: A brief review of instruments and techniques [J].
Younger, Jarred ;
McCue, Rebecca ;
Mackey, Sean .
CURRENT PAIN AND HEADACHE REPORTS, 2009, 13 (01) :39-43