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
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.
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
Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Its Etiology, Treatment, and Prevention
Watcha, M. F., & White, P. F. (1992) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-199207000-00023 · Cited by 1,728
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
Difference in Risk Factors for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Stadler, M., Bardiau, F., Seidel, L., Albert, A., & Boogaerts, J. G. (2003) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-200301000-00011 · Cited by 314
Self-citationMontgomery, G. H., Bovbjerg, D. H., Schnur, J. B., David, D., Goldfarb, A., Weltz, C. R., Schechter, C., Graff-Zivin, J., Tatrow, K., Price, D. D., et al. (2007) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djm106 · Cited by 292
Hausel, J., Nygren, J., Thorell, A., Lagerkranser, M., & Ljungqvist, O. (2005) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.4901 · Cited by 280
Montgomery, G. H., Hallquist, M. N., Schnur, J. B., David, D., Silverstein, J. H., & Bovbjerg, D. H. (2010) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017392 · Cited by 110
Wendling, A. L., Byun, S. Y., Koenig, M., & Vasilopoulos, T. (2020) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-020-05455-z · Cited by 26
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.