Pain Scales: What Are They and What Do They Mean

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is essential to have validated and reliable pain measurement tools that cover a wide range of areas and are tailored to individual patients to ensure effective pain management. The main objective of this review is to provide comprehensive information on commonly used pain scales and questionnaires, including their usefulness, intended purpose, applicability to different patient populations, and associated advantages and disadvantages.

RECENT FINDINGS

Acute pain questionnaires typically focus on measuring the severity of pain and the extent of relief achieved through interventions. Chronic pain questionnaires evaluate additional aspects such as pain-related functional limitations, psychological distress, and psychological well-being. The selection of an appropriate pain scale depends on the specific assessment objectives. Additionally, each pain scale has its strengths and limitations. Understanding the differences among these pain scales is essential for selecting the most appropriate tool tailored to individual patient needs in different settings.

CONCLUSION

Medical professionals encounter challenges in accurately assessing pain. Physicians must be familiar with the different pain scales and their applicability to specific patient population.

Validity and Utility of Four Pain Intensity Measures for Use in International Research

Background

The majority of previous research that has examined the validity of pain intensity rating scales has been conducted in western and developed countries. Research to evaluate the generalizability of previous findings in non-developed countries is necessary for identifying the scales that are most appropriate for use in international research.

Purpose

The aims of the current study were to (1) evaluate the validity and utility of four commonly used measures of pain intensity in a sample of patients with chronic pain from Thailand and (2) compare findings in the current sample with published findings from research conducted in other countries, in order to identify the measure or measures which might be most appropriate for cross-country research.

Methods

Three hundred and sixty patients with chronic pain seen in a hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, were asked to rate their current pain and average, worst, and least pain intensity in the past week using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 6-point Verbal Rating Scale (VRS-6), 0–10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11), and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). We evaluated the utility and validity of each measure by examining the (1) rates of correct responding and (2) association of each measure with a factor score representing the variance shared across measures, respectively. We also evaluated the associations between incorrect response rates and both age and education level, and then compared the findings from this sample with the findings from research conducted in other countries.

Results

The results indicated support for the validity of all measures among participants who were able to use these measures. However, there was variability in the incorrect response rates, with the VAS having the highest (45%) and the NRS-11 having the lowest (15%) incorrect response rates. The VAS was also the least preferred (9%) and the NRS-11 the most preferred (52%) scale. Education and age were significantly associated with incorrect response rates, and education level with scale preference.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that the NRS-11 has the most utility in our sample of Thai individuals with chronic pain. However, when considered in light of the findings from other countries, the results of this study suggest that the FPS-R may have the most utility for use in cross-cultural and international research. Research in additional samples in developing countries is needed to evaluate the generalizability of the current findings.

Electronic Continuous Pain Measurement vs Verbal Rating Scale in gynaecology: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain measured with a new electronic device - the Continuous Pain Score Meter (CPSM) - and the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) during gynaecological procedures in an outpatient setting, and to correlate these outcomes with baseline anxiety and patient (in)tolerance to the procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective cohort study was undertaken in two centres: a university hospital and a large teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Patients undergoing an outpatient hysteroscopy, colposcopy or ovum pick-up procedure for in-vitro fertilization in one of the two participating hospitals with availability of the CPSM were included. Pain was measured by both the CPSM and the VRS. Patient tolerance to the procedure was reported. Various outcomes of the CPSM were compared with those of the VRS and related to baseline anxiety scores.

RESULTS

Ninety-one of 108 included patients (84 %) used the CPSM correctly during the procedure, and it was possible to analyse the CPSM scores for 87 women (81 %). The CPSM scores were all linearly related to the VRS. The peak pain score on the CPSM (CPSM-PPS) had the strongest correlation with the VRS score for all three procedures. Higher CPSM-PPS was related to patient (in)tolerance to the procedure (p = 0.03-0.002). Anxiety at baseline was not correlated with pain perception, except for VRS during colposcopy (r = 0.39, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients were able to use the CPSM correctly, resulting in detailed information on pain perception for each individual pain stimulus during three outpatient gynaecological procedures. The CPSM-PPS had the strongest correlation with the VRS score and patient (in)tolerance to the procedure.

[Study on the application of dexmedetomidine combined with remifentanil in dressing change of conscious patients with non-intubation in burn intensive care unit]

Objective: To observe the analgesic and sedative effect and safety of application of dexmedetomidine combined with remifentanil in dressing change of conscious patients with non-intubation in burn intensive care unit. Methods: Forty patients conforming to the study criteria hospitalized in our burn intensive care unit from April 2015 to April 2017 were selected. Prospective, randomized, and double-blind method was used for the design. Patients were divided into dexmedetomidine group and dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group according to the random number table, with 20 cases in each group. Patients in the two groups were respectively given corresponding drugs during dressing change. The frequency and time of dressing change, Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) score of patients during dressing change (at drug administration for 25 minutes) and after dressing change (25 min after dressing change), Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) during dressing change, satisfaction level for anesthesia of the patients and physicians after dressing change, dosage of remifentanil, and various adverse effects during and after dressing change were recorded. The heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), respiratory rate, and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) before drug administration and at 10, 15, and 25 minutes after drug administration were also recorded. Data were processed with analysis of variance for repeated measurement, t test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact probability test. Results: (1) Totally 38 patients completed the trial. There were no statistically significant differences between patients in two groups in gender, American Association of Anesthesiologist Grading, age, weight, and total burn area (χ²=0.230, 0.146, t=0.224, 0.351, 0.367, P>0.05). (2) The frequency of dressing change of patients in two groups were both 48 times. The time of dressing change and VRS scores during dressing change of patients in two groups were similar (t=0.821, 1.522, P>0.05). The VRS score of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group after dressing change was (3.1±0.4) points, obviously lower than (3.8±0.8) points in remifentanil group (t=2.213, P<0.05). The RSS, satisfaction level scores for anesthesia of the patients and physicians after dressing change in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group were (3.13±0.32), (3.44±0.41), and (3.13±0.25) points, respectively, obviously better than (1.82±0.24), (2.71±0.23), (2.53±0.41) points in remifentanil group (t=2.226, 2.684, 7.702, P<0.01). The dosage of remifentanil of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group was (282±19) μg, obviously less than (340±31) μg in remifentanil group (t=9.896, P<0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between patients in two groups in rates of respiratory inhibition and hypotension (χ²=0.211, 0.154, P>0.05). Compared with those in remifentanil group, the rates of nausea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal symptoms of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group were obviously reduced (P<0.05), but the rate of bradycardia was obviously increased (χ²=6.008, P<0.05). (3) There were no statistically significant differences between patients in two groups in heart rate, MAP, respiratory frequency, and SpO₂ before drug administration (t=0.444, 0.892, 1.059, 1.039, P>0.05). The heart rates of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group at 10, 15, and 25 minutes after drug administration were (83±11), (78±10), and (82±14) times per minute, respectively, significantly lower than (95±10), (87±12), and (89±12) times per minute in remifentanil group (t=5.592, 3.992, 2.630, P<0.05 or P<0.01). The MAP of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group at 15 and 25 minutes after drug administration were (69.4±3.1) and (73.8±2.2) mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa), respectively, significantly lower than (75.4±3.0) and (78.1±3.5) mmHg in remifentanil group (t=9.181, 7.206, P<0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between patients in two groups in respiratory frequency at each time point after drug administration (t=1.489, 1.862, 1.963, P>0.05). The SpO₂ of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group at 15 minutes after drug administration was 0.972±0.018, obviously lower than 0.979±0.015 in remifentanil group (t=2.070, P<0.05). Conclusions: Application of remifentanil with small dosage has effective analgesia for conscious burn patients with non-intubation during dressing changes, however, adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting are likely to occur. Remifentanil combined with dexmedetomidine not only guarantee the analgesic effect, but also reduce the dosage of analgesics, improve the sedative effect and satisfaction of the patients for anesthesia, and reduce various adverse effects. However, it will increase the incidence of bradycardia and has some inhibition effect on circulation at the same time.