The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Visual Analog Scale for Pain: Clinical Significance in Postoperative Patients
Open accessAbstract
Background: The visual analog scale is widely used in research studies, but its connection with clinical experience outside the research setting and the best way to administer the VAS forms are not well established. This study defines changes in dosing of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia as a clinically relevant outcome and compares it with VAS measures of postoperative pain. Methods: Visual analog scale measurements were obtained from 150 patients on the morning after intraabdominal surgery. On the same afternoon, 50 of the patients provided a VAS score on the same form used in the morning, 50 on a new form, and 50 were not asked for a second VAS measurement. Results: Visual analog scale values and changes in value were similar for patients who were given a new VAS form in the afternoon and those who used the form that showed the morning value. The proportions of patients requesting additional analgesia were 4, 43, and 80%, corresponding to afternoon VAS scores of 30 or less, 31-70, and greater than 70, respectively. Change from morning VAS score had no apparent influence on patient-controlled analgesic dosing for patients with afternoon values of 30 or less or greater than 70, but changes in VAS scores of at least 10 did discriminate among patients whose afternoon values were between 31 and 70. Conclusions: When pain is an outcome measure in research studies, grouping final VAS scores into a small number of categories provides greater clinical relevance for comparisons than using the full spectrum of measured values or changes in value. Seeing an earlier VAS form has no apparent influence on later values.
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
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
Dionne, C. E., Dunn, K. M., Croft, P. R., Nachemson, A. L., Buchbinder, R., Walker, B. F., Wyatt, M., Cassidy, J. D., Rossignol, M., Leboeuf-Yde, C., et al. (2008) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31815e7f94 · Cited by 768
Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Baron, G., Falissard, B., Logeart, I., Bellamy, N., Bombardier, C., Felson, D., Hochberg, M., van der Heijde, D., et al. (2005) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard.2004.023028 · Cited by 640
The impact of menstrual symptoms on everyday life: a survey among 42,879 women
Schoep, M. E., Nieboer, T. E., van der Zanden, M., Braat, D. D. M., & Nap, A. W. (2019) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.02.048 · Cited by 313
NIH Consensus Statement on Total Knee Replacement December 8-10, 2003*
(2004) · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume · doi:10.2106/00004623-200406000-00030 · Cited by 269
Metadata
- Authors
- Bodian, C. A., Freedman, G., Hossain, S., Eisenkraft, J. B., & Beilin, Y.
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2001-12-01
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1356-1361
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2035691448
- Cited by
- 457
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: The Visual Analog Scale for Pain: Clinical Significance in Postoperative Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000542-200112000-00013
- The paper
- Bodian, C. A., Freedman, G., Hossain, S., Eisenkraft, J. B., & Beilin, Y. (2001). The Visual Analog Scale for Pain: Clinical Significance in Postoperative Patients. Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200112000-00013
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.