The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain?
Abstract
Despite widespread use of the 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) of pain intensity, relatively little is known about the meaning of decreases in pain intensity assessed by means of this scale to patients. We aimed to establish the meaning to patients of declines in pain intensity and percent pain reduction. Upon arrival to the postanesthesia care unit, postsurgical patients rated their baseline pain intensity on both a 0-10 NRS and on a 4-point verbal scale. Patients whose NRS was higher than 4/10 received intravenous opioids until their pain intensity declined to 4/10 or lower. During opioid titration, patients were asked every 10 min to rate pain intensity on a NRS and to indicate the degree of pain improvement on a 5-point Likert scale from 'no improvement' to 'complete pain relief'. Seven hundred adult patients were enrolled. For patients with moderate pain, a decrease of 1.3 units (20% reduction) corresponded to 'minimal' improvement, a decrease of 2.4 (35% reduction) to 'much' improvement, a decrease of 3.5 units (45% reduction) corresponded to 'very much' improvement. For patients with severe pain, the decrease in NRS pain score and the percentage of pain relief had to be larger to obtain similar degrees of pain relief. The change in pain intensity that is meaningful to patients increases as the severity of their baseline pain increases. The present findings are applicable in the clinical setting and research arena to assess treatment efficacy.
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
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
The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres?
Collins, S. L., Moore, A. R., & McQuay, H. J. (1997) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00005-5 · Cited by 1,543
Cited by
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Wyrwich, K. W., Beaton, D., Cleeland, C. S., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Kerns, R. D., Ader, D. N., et al. (2008) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 · Cited by 3,471
Myles, P. S., Myles, D. B., Galagher, W., Boyd, D., Chew, C., MacDonald, N., & Dennis, A. (2017) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aew466 · Cited by 1,017
Gordon, D. B., Dahl, J. L., Miaskowski, C., McCarberg, B., Todd, K. H., Paice, J. A., Lipman, A. G., Bookbinder, M., Sanders, S. H., Turk, D. C., et al. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.14.1574 · Cited by 687
Self-citationOpioid-induced hyperalgesia in patients after surgery: a systematic review and a meta-analysis
Fletcher, D., & Martinez, V. (2014) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aeu137 · Cited by 635
Gerbershagen, H. J., Rothaug, J., Kalkman, C. J., & Meissner, W. (2011) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aer195 · Cited by 527
Metadata
- Authors
- Cepeda, S. M., Africano, J. M., Polo, R., Alcala, R., & Carr, D. B.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 151-157
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2043177715
- Cited by
- 519
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.26
- 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: What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00176-3
- The paper
- Cepeda, S. M., Africano, J. M., Polo, R., Alcala, R., & Carr, D. B. (2003). What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain? Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00176-3
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.