Barbara Hoggart

Bio: Barbara Hoggart is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Visual analogue scale & Scale (ratio). The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 1958 citations.

Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales.

Abstract: Aims and objectives. This review aims to explore the research available relating to three commonly used pain rating scales, the Visual Analogue Scale, the Verbal Rating Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale. The review provides information needed to understand the main properties of the scales. Background. Data generated from pain-rating scales can be easily misunderstood. This review can help clinicians to understand the main features of these tools and thus use them effectively. Method. A MedLine review via PubMed was carried out with no restriction of age of papers retrieved. Papers were examined for methodological soundness before being included. The search terms initially included pain rating scales, pain measurement, Visual Analogue Scale, VAS, Verbal Rating Scale, VRS, Numerical/numeric Rating Scale, NRS. The reference lists of retrieved articles were used to generate more papers and search terms. Only English Language papers were examined. Conclusions. All three pain-rating scales are valid, reliable and appropriate for use in clinical practice, although the Visual Analogue Scale has more practical difficulties than the Verbal Rating Scale or the Numerical Rating Scale. For general purposes the Numerical Rating Scale has good sensitivity and generates data that can be statistically analysed for audit purposes. Patients who seek a sensitive pain-rating scale would probably choose this one. For simplicity patients prefer the Verbal Rating Scale, but it lacks sensitivity and the data it produces can be misunderstood. Relevance to clinical practice. In order to use pain-rating scales well clinicians need to appreciate the potential for error within the tools, and the potential they have to provide the required information. Interpretation of the data from a pain-rating scale is not as straightforward as it might first appear.

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales

Abstract: The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) are among the most commonly used measures of pain intensity in clinical and research settings. Although evidence supports their validity as measures of pain intensity, few studies have compared them with respect to the critical validity criteria of responsivity, and no experiment has directly compared all 4 measures in the same study. The current study compared the relative validity of VAS, NRS, VRS, and FPS-R for detecting differences in painful stimulus intensity and differences between men and women in response to experimentally induced pain. One hundred twenty-seven subjects underwent four 20-second cold pressor trials with temperature order counterbalanced across 1°C, 3°C, 5°C, and 7°C and rated pain intensity using all 4 scales. Results showed statistically significant differences in pain intensity between temperatures for each scale, with lower temperatures resulting in higher pain intensity. The order of responsivity was as follows: NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R. However, there were relatively small differences in the responsivity between scales. A statistically significant sex main effect was also found for the NRS, VRS, and FPS-R. The findings are consistent with previous studies supporting the validity of each scale. The most support emerged for the NRS as being both (1) most responsive and (2) able to detect sex differences in pain intensity. The results also provide support for the validity of the scales for use in Portuguese samples.

Three new datasets supporting use of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11) for children's self-reports of pain intensity.

Abstract: Despite wide usage of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for self-report of pain intensity in clinical practice with children and adolescents, validation data are lacking. We present here three datasets from studies in which the NRS was used together with another self-report scale. Study A compared post-operative pain ratings on the NRS with scores on the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) in 69 children age 7–17 years who had undergone a variety of surgical procedures. Study B compared post-operative pain ratings on the NRS with scores on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in 29 children age 9–17 years who had undergone pectus excavatum repair. Study C compared ratings of remembered immunization pain in 236 children who comprised an NRS group and a sex- and age-matched VAS group. Correlations of the NRS with the FPS-R and VAS were r = 0.87 and 0.89 in Studies A and B, respectively. In Study C, the distributions of scores on the NRS and VAS were very similar except that scores closest to the no pain anchor were more likely to be selected on the VAS than the NRS. The NRS can be considered functionally equivalent to the VAS and FPS-R except for very mild pain (<1/10). We conclude that use of the NRS is tentatively supported for clinical practice with children of 8 years and older, and we recommend further research on the lower age limit and on standardized age-appropriate anchors and instructions for this scale.

A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use?

Abstract: Objective 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? Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

A systematic review of intravenous ketamine for postoperative analgesia

Abstract: Purpose Perioperative intravenous ketamine may be a useful addition in pain management regimens. Previous systematic reviews have included all methods of ketamine administration, and heterogeneity between studies has been substantial. This study addresses this issue by narrowing the inclusion criteria, using a random effects model, and performing subgroup analysis to determine the specific types of patients, surgery, and clinical indications which may benefit from perioperative ketamine administration.

Assessment of pruritus intensity: prospective study on validity and reliability of the visual analogue scale, numerical rating scale and verbal rating scale in 471 patients with chronic pruritus.

Abstract: The most commonly used tool for self-report of pruritus intensity is the visual analogue scale (VAS). Similar tools are the numerical rating scale (NRS) and verbal rating scale (VRS). In the present study (initiated by the International Forum for the Study of Itch) assessing reliability of these tools, 471 randomly selected patients with chronic itch (200 males, 271 females, mean age 58.44 years) recorded their pruritus intensity on VAS (100-mm line), NRS (0–10) and VRS (four-point) scales. Re-test reliability was analysed in a subgroup of 250 patients after one hour. Statistical analysis showed a high reliability and concurrent validity (r>0.8; p<0.01) for all tools. Mean values of all scales showed a high correlation. In conclusion, high reliability and concurrent validity was found for VAS, NRS and VRS. On re-test, higher correlation and less missing values were observed. A training session before starting a clinical trial is recommended. Key words: itch; measurement tools; clinical trial; International Forum for the Study of Itch; concurrent validity.