The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale
Abstract
The visual analogue scale (VAS) is a simple and frequently used method for the assessment of variations in intensity of pain. In clinical practice the percentage of pain relief, assessed by VAS, is often considered as a measure of the efficacy of treatment. However, as illustrated in the present study, the validity of VAS estimates performed by patients with chronic pain may be unsatisfactory. Two types of VAS, an absolute and a comparative scale, were compared with respect to factors influencing the reliability and validity of pain estimates. As shown in this study the absolute type of VAS seems to be less sensitive to bias than the comparative one and is therefore preferable for general clinical use. Moreover, the patients appear to differ considerably in their ability to use the VAS reliably. When assessing efficacy of treatment attention should therefore be paid to several complementary indices of pain relief as well as to the individual's tendency to bias his estimates.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
THE MECHANISM OF PLACEBO ANALGESIA
Levine, J., Gordon, N., & Fields, H. (1978) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(78)92762-9 · Cited by 1,094
Ohnhaus, E. E., & Adler, R. (1975) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(75)90075-5 · Cited by 797
Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain
Joyce, C. R. B., Zutshi, D. W., Hrubes, V., & Mason, R. M. (1975) · European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00562315 · Cited by 539
Cited by
Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review
McCormack, H. M., de L. Horne, D. J., & Sheather, S. (1988) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291700009934 · Cited by 2,108
Clinically important outcomes in low back pain
Ostelo, R. W. J. G., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2005) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003 · Cited by 840
Katz, J., & Melzack, R. (1999) · Surgical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/s0039-6109(05)70381-9 · Cited by 723
DeLoach, L. J., Higgins, M. S., Caplan, A. B., & Stiff, J. L. (1998) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1097/00000539-199801000-00020 · Cited by 722
Smeets, R. J. E. M., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., Kester, A. D. M., & Knottnerus, J. A. (2006) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2005.10.011 · Cited by 629
Metadata
- Authors
- Carlsson, A. M.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1983-05
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-101
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019169178
- Cited by
- 1,853
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(83)90088-x
- The paper
- Carlsson, A. M. (1983). Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(83)90088-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
