CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,697Pain Management and Opioid UseAnesthesia and Pain ManagementPediatric Pain Management Techniques

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 access
Hjermstad, Marianne Jensen, Fayers, Peter M., Haugen, Dagny F., Caraceni, Augusto, Hanks, Geoffrey W., Loge, Jon H., Fainsinger, Robin, Aass, Nina, Kaasa, Stein·2011·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
DOI 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 88 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 1,003

Related

See all

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)
DOI
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016
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
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