HEALTH-related quality of life (HRQL) is increasingly used as an outcome in clinical trials, effectiveness research, and research on quality of care. Factors that have facilitated this increased usage include the accumulating evidence that measures of HRQL are valid and "reliable,"1the publication of several large clinical trials showing that these outcome measures are responsive to important clinical changes,2-5and the successful development and testing of shorter instruments that are easier to understand and administer.6-13Because these measures describe or characterize what the patient has experienced as the result of medical care, they are useful and important supplements to traditional physiological or biological measures of health status. Given this improved ability to assess patients' health status, how can physicians and health care systems intervene to improve HRQL? Implicit in the use of measures of HRQL in clinical trials and in effectiveness research is the concept that clinical

Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes

We performed magnetic resonance imaging on sixty-seven individuals who had never had low-back pain, sciatica, or neurogenic claudication. The scans were interpreted independently by three neuro-radiologists who had no knowledge about the presence or absence of clinical symptoms in the subjects. About one-third of the subjects were found to have a substantial abnormality. Of those who were less than sixty years old, 20 per cent had a herniated nucleus pulposus and one had spinal stenosis. In the group that was sixty years old or older, the findings were abnormal on about 57 per cent of the scans: 36 per cent of the subjects had a herniated nucleus pulposus and 21 per cent had spinal stenosis. There was degeneration or bulging of a disc at at least one lumbar level in 35 per cent of the subjects between twenty and thirty-nine years old and in all but one of the sixty to eighty-year-old subjects. In view of these findings in asymptomatic subjects, we concluded that abnormalities on magnetic resonance images must be strictly correlated with age and any clinical signs and symptoms before operative treatment is contemplated.

Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation

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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x

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

Background The relation between abnormalities in the lumbar spine and low back pain is controversial. We examined the prevalence of abnormal findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. Methods We performed MRI examinations on 98 asymptomatic people. The scans were read independently by two neuroradiologists who did not know the clinical status of the subjects. To reduce the possibility of bias in interpreting the studies, abnormal MRI scans from 27 people with back pain were mixed randomly with the scans from the asymptomatic people. We used the following standardized terms to classify the five intervertebral disks in the lumbosacral spine: normal, bulge (circumferential symmetric extension of the disk beyond the interspace), protrusion (focal or asymmetric extension of the disk beyond the interspace), and extrusion (more extreme extension of the disk beyond the interspace). Nonintervertebral disk abnormalities, such as facet arthropathy, were also d...

Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain.

LOW back pain is usually a self-limiting symptom, but it costs at least $16 billion each year1 , 2 and disables 5.4 million Americans.3 The fact that a benign physical condition has such an importa...

Back pain and sciatica.

In order to study the type and number of CAT scan abnormalities of the lumbar spine that occur in asymptomatic people, 52 studies from a control population with no history of back trouble were mixed randomly with six scans from patients with surgically proven spinal disease, and all were interpreted

Nicholas Tsourmas

Papers

A study of computer-assisted tomography. I. The incidence of positive CAT scans in an asymptomatic group of patients.