Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of postoperative nausea using a visual analogue scale

Boogaerts, J. G., Vanacker, E., Seidel, L., Albert, A., Bardiau, F. M.·2000·Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

Abstract

Background: Assessment of postoperative nausea intensity is difficult because nausea is a subjective and unpleasant sensation. We propose using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) device to increase the efficiency and precision in the assessment of nausea. We carried out a pilot study on postoperative patients suffering from nausea to measure the degree of agreement between the VAS scores and those given on a 4‐point verbal descriptive scale (VDS). Methods: Postoperative nausea was evaluated by means of a classical VAS (0–10 cm) device and a 4‐point VDS (0=no nausea, 1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe) in 128 surgical spontaneously complaining patients. Evaluation was repeated 45 min after rescue medication given if nausea was intractable, lasted more than 10 min or at the request of the patient. Ordinal logistic regression was used to measure the association between VAS and VDS and to determine cut‐off points on the VAS. Results: The VAS device was easily understood and used by patients. VAS scores decreased significantly from 5.5±2.3 to 1.4±1.8 after rescue medication (P=0.002). Application of ordinal logistic regression to pre‐ and post‐medication data combined yielded an agreement of 86% between VAS and VDS and the cut‐off points on the VAS were estimated as follows: 0–1 (no nausea), 1+–4 (mild), 4+–7 (moderate) and 7+–10 (severe). Conclusion: The VAS method proved to be useful for assessing quantitative nausea intensity and for testing the efficacy of rescue medication. It was found that a cut‐off value of 4 on the VAS may be considered as a critical threshold triggering anaesthesiologists or nurses to administer rescue medication.

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 · 10.1034/j.1399-6576.2000.440420.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Boogaerts, J. G., Vanacker, E., Seidel, L., Albert, A., & Bardiau, F. M.
Venue
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-04
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
470-474
ISSN
  • 0001-5172 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-6576
OpenAlex
W2160759330
Cited by
190
References
2
FWCI
5.46
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 postoperative nausea using a visual analogue scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1399-6576.2000.440420.x
The paper
Boogaerts, J. G., Vanacker, E., Seidel, L., Albert, A., & Bardiau, F. M. (2000). Assessment of postoperative nausea using a visual analogue scale. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-6576.2000.440420.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.