The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Studies with different types of visual analog scales for measurement of pain
Abstract
We compared the sensitivity of different types of visual analog scales and of descriptive pain terms in healthy volunteers and in postoperative patients. One hundred and seven volunteers marked visual analog scales according to their perception of the descriptive pain terms--little, mild, some, moderate, severe, agonizing. Individual variation in values and preferences between the five following five different visual analog scales were analyzed: 10-cm linear horizontal and vertical scales, a curvilinear scale, and graded horizontal and curvilinear scales. Significantly more volunteers preferred the horizontal scale with gradations. Scores for the vertical linear scale had the greatest coefficient of variation and were least normally distributed. The majority of volunteers considered the phrase "agonizing pain" the best term defining the extreme limit of pain (X2(12) = 41.8, P less than 0.001). There were significant changes in the values of pain intensity measured on visual analog scales by patients using the same descriptive pain term on successive observations. However, the patients' values for pain terms in the preoperative pain-free state were not significantly different from those during postoperative pain. We conclude that graded linear horizontal scales are both more reliable and preferred by participants and that visual analog scales give a more sensitive and accurate representation of pain intensity than do descriptive pain scales.
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
Cited by
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
A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena
Wewers, M. E., & Lowe, N. K. (1990) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.4770130405 · Cited by 2,580
A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function
Richards, R. R., An, K.-N., Bigliani, L. U., Friedman, R. J., Gartsman, G. M., Gristina, A. G., Iannotti, J. P., Mow, V. C., Sidles, J. A., & Zuckerman, J. D. (1994) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/s1058-2746(09)80019-0 · Cited by 1,726
Clinically important outcomes in low back pain
Ostelo, R. W. J. G., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2005) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003 · Cited by 840
Rossi, P., Andriesse, G. I., Oey, P. L., Wieneke, G. H., Roelofs, J. M. M., & Akkermans, L. M. A. (1998) · Journal of the Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1016/s0022-510x(98)00276-7 · Cited by 767
Metadata
- Authors
- Sriwatanakul, K., Kelvie, W., Lasagna, L., Calimlim, J. F., Weis, O. F., & Mehta, G.
- Venue
- Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1983-08
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 234-239
- ISSN
- 0009-9236 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6535
- OpenAlex
- W1987856010
- Cited by
- 473
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.56
- 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: Studies with different types of visual analog scales for measurement of pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/clpt.1983.159
- The paper
- Sriwatanakul, K., Kelvie, W., Lasagna, L., Calimlim, J. F., Weis, O. F., & Mehta, G. (1983). Studies with different types of visual analog scales for measurement of pain. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.1983.159
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.