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

Placeholder

Departments

School / College / Institute

Organizational Unit
Organizational Unit
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Upper Org Unit

Program

KU-Authors

KU Authors

Co-Authors

Karcıoğlu, Ɩzgür
Topaçoğlu, Hakan
Dikme, Ɩzgür

Publication Date

Language

Type

Embargo Status

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Alternative Title

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. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Source

Publisher

W B Saunders Co-Elsevier Inc

Subject

Emergency medicine

Citation

Has Part

Source

American Journal of Emergency Medicine

Book Series Title

Edition

DOI

10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.008

item.page.datauri

Link

Rights

Copyrights Note

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

0

Views

0

Downloads

View PlumX Details