The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability of the Visual Analog Scale for Measurement of Acute Pain
Abstract
Objective: Reliable and valid measures of pain are needed to advance research initiatives on appropriate and effective use of analgesia in the emergency department (ED). The reliability of visual analog scale (VAS) scores has not been demonstrated in the acute setting where pain fluctuation might be greater than for chronic pain. The objective of the study was to assess the reliability of the VAS for measurement of acute pain. Methods: This was a prospective convenience sample of adults with acute pain presenting to two EDs. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and a Bland‐Altman analysis were used to assess reliability of paired VAS measurements obtained 1 minute apart every 30 minutes over two hours. Results: The summary ICC for all paired VAS scores was 0.97 [95% CI = 0.96 to 0.98]. The Bland‐Altman analysis showed that 50% of the paired measurements were within 2 mm of one another, 90% were within 9 mm, and 95% were within 16 mm. The paired measurements were more reproducible at the extremes of pain intensity than at moderate levels of pain. Conclusions: Reliability of the VAS for acute pain measurement as assessed by the ICC appears to be high. Ninety percent of the pain ratings were reproducible within 9 mm. These data suggest that the VAS is sufficiently reliable to be used to assess acute pain.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800204 · Cited by 9,619
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1191/096228099673819272 · Cited by 9,619
Cited by
Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales
Williamson, A., & Hoggart, B. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x · Cited by 3,083
Bijur, P. E., Latimer, C. T., & Gallagher, E. J. (2003) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb01355.x · Cited by 933
Self-citationZeilig, G., Weingarden, H., Zwecker, M., Dudkiewicz, I., Bloch, A., & Esquenazi, A. (2012) · The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine · doi:10.1179/2045772312y.0000000003 · Cited by 537
Experimental muscle pain changes feedforward postural responses of the trunk muscles
Hodges, P. W., Moseley, G. L., Gabrielsson, A., & Gandevia, S. C. (2003) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-003-1457-x · Cited by 447
Wager, T. D., Atlas, L. Y., Leotti, L. A., & Rilling, J. K. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3420-10.2011 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Bijur, P. E., Silver, W., & Gallagher, E. J.
- Venue
- Academic Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1153-1157
- ISSN
- 1069-6563 (ISSN-L)
- 1553-2712
- OpenAlex
- W1997769138
- Cited by
- 2,067
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 12.09
- 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: Reliability of the Visual Analog Scale for Measurement of Acute Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x
- The paper
- Bijur, P. E., Silver, W., & Gallagher, E. J. (2001). Reliability of the Visual Analog Scale for Measurement of Acute Pain. Academic Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.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.
