Cited by 527Anesthesia and Pain ManagementPain Management and Opioid UsePediatric Pain Management Techniques

Determination of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain on the numeric rating scale: a cut-off point analysis applying four different methods

Open access
Gerbershagen, H.J., Rothaug, J., Kalkman, C.J., Meissner, W.·2011·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

Background Cut-off points (CPs) of the numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10) are regularly used in postoperative pain treatment. However, there is insufficient evidence to identify the optimal CP between mild and moderate pain.Methods A total of 435 patients undergoing general, trauma, or oral and maxillofacial surgery were studied. To determine the optimal CP for pain treatment, four approaches were used: first, patients estimated their tolerable postoperative pain intensity before operation; secondly, 24 h after surgery, they indicated if they would have preferred to receive more analgesics; thirdly, satisfaction with pain treatment was analysed, and fourthly, multivariate analysis was used to calculate the optimal CP for pain intensities in relation to pain-related interference with movement, breathing, sleep, and mood.Results The estimated tolerable postoperative pain before operation was median (range) NRS 4.0 (0-10). Patients who would have liked more analgesics reported significantly higher average pain since surgery [median NRS 5.0 (0-9)] compared with those without this request [NRS 3.0 (0-8)]. Patients satisfied with pain treatment reported an average pain intensity of median NRS 3.0 (0-8) compared with less satisfied patients with NRS 5.0 (2-9). Analysis of average postoperative pain in relation to pain-related interference with mood and activity indicated pain categories of NRS 0-2, mild; 3-4, moderate; and 5-10, severe pain.Conclusions Three of the four methods identified a treatment threshold of average pain of NRS≥4. This was considered to identify patients with pain of moderate-to-severe intensity. This cut-off was indentified as the tolerable pain threshold.

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 · 10.1093/bja/aer195

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The items used for impact stratification (pain intensity, pain interference, and functional status) have substantial research support for their discriminatory and prognostic importance.

    “These items have substantial research support to validate their discriminatory and prognostic importance. 13, 19, 31, 38, 39, 43, 47–49, 53, 54, 57–60, 66–68, 73, 76, 80, 82, 85, 86, 97, 106, 108, 110, 112–116, 122”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [13]13. Meissner W, Mescha S, Rothaug J, et al. Quality improvement in postoperative pain management. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105: 865-70

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gerbershagen, H. J., Rothaug, J., Kalkman, C. J., & Meissner, W.
Affiliations
  • Jena University Hospital (DE)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
107
Issue
4
Pages
619-626
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120666477
Cited by
527
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 10
FWCI
16.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
postoperative pain, numerical rating scale, cut-off values, pain intensity classification, pain interference, patient satisfaction with analgesia, general surgery, maxillofacial surgery, trauma surgery
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Aged, Analgesics, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Postoperative Pain, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reference Standards, Respiration, Sleep, Patient Satisfaction, Pain Threshold, Threshold Limit Values, Young Adult

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