The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Studies Comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for Assessment of Pain Intensity in Adults: A Systematic Literature Review
Open accessAbstract
Context The use of unidimensional pain scales such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is recommended for assessment of pain intensity (PI). A literature review of studies specifically comparing the NRS, VRS, and/or VAS for unidimensional self-report of PI was performed as part of the work of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative on pain assessment.Objectives To investigate the use and performance of unidimensional pain scales, with specific emphasis on the NRSs.Methods A systematic search was performed, including citations through April 2010. All abstracts were evaluated by two persons according to specified criteria.Results Fifty-four of 239 papers were included. Postoperative PI was most frequently studied; six studies were in cancer. Eight versions of the NRS (NRS-6 to NRS-101) were used in 37 studies; a total of 41 NRSs were tested. Twenty-four different descriptors (15 for the NRSs) were used to anchor the extremes. When compared with the VAS and VRS, NRSs had better compliance in 15 of 19 studies reporting this, and were the recommended tool in 11 studies on the basis of higher compliance rates, better responsiveness and ease of use, and good applicability relative to VAS/VRS. Twenty-nine studies gave no preference. Many studies showed wide distributions of NRS scores within each category of the VRSs. Overall, NRS and VAS scores corresponded, with a few exceptions of systematically higher VAS scores.Conclusion NRSs are applicable for unidimensional assessment of PI in most settings. Whether the variability in anchors and response options directly influences the numerical scores needs to be empirically tested. This will aid in the work toward a consensus-based, standardized measure.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Beckett, A. H., Rowland, M., & TURNER, P. (1965) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(65)91037-8 · Cited by 16,917
The McGill Pain Questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods
Melzack, R. (1975) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(75)90044-5 · Cited by 6,873
Farrar, J. T., Young, J. P., LaMoreaux, L., Werth, J. L., & Poole, M. R. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9 · Cited by 5,808
Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Katz, N. P., Kerns, R. D., Stucki, G., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., et al. (2005) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012 · Cited by 3,732
Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., Brandenburg, N., Carr, D. B., Cleeland, C., Dionne, R., Farrar, J. T., Galer, B. S., et al. (2003) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2003.08.001 · Cited by 3,510
The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods
Jensen, M. P., Karoly, P., & Braver, S. (1986) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9 · Cited by 3,275
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00050-5 · Cited by 2,106
Studies with pain rating scales.
Downie, W., Leatham, P. A., Rhind, V. M., Wright, V. A., Branco, J. A., & Anderson, J. (1978) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard.37.4.378 · Cited by 1,987
Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases
Daut, R. L., Cleeland, C. S., & Flanery, R. C. (1983) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90143-4 · Cited by 1,562
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,003 of 1,003
Purcell, A., Buckley, T., King, J., Moyle, W., & Marshall, A. P. (2018) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-018-0312-6 · Cited by 6
Pedersen, H. F., Lamm, T. T., Fink, P., Ørnbøl, E., & Frostholm, L. (2023) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101069 · Cited by 4
Kovacic, S., Habicht, S. D., & Eckert, G. P. (2025) · Journal of Nutritional Science · doi:10.1017/jns.2025.10043 · Cited by 4
“(31,32) One of the included studies by T´oth et al. (33) measured muscle symptoms with a similar score scaling from 0 to 10 developed by the study team.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Hjermstad, M. J., Fayers, P. M., Haugen, D. F., Caraceni, A., Hanks, G. W., Loge, J. H., Fainsinger, R., Aass, N., & Kaasa, S.
- Affiliations
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
- Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (IT)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Hjermstad, Marianne Jensen
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1073-1093
- ISSN
- 0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2107153119
- Cited by
- 2,697
- References
- 88
- Citations by year
- 2026: 204 · 2025: 249 · 2024: 239 · 2023: 234 · 2022: 262 · 2021: 277 · 2020: 210 · 2019: 203 · 2018: 203 · 2017: 174 · 2016: 151 · 2015: 117 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 67 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 10.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Sixth Framework Programme (LSHC-CT-2006-037777)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Pain Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
- Keywords
- pain intensity assessment, numerical rating scale, verbal rating scale, visual analogue scale, scale comparison, response options, postoperative pain, cancer pain, scale standardization
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Humans, Pain, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires
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
