The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validation of a Verbally Administered Numerical Rating Scale of Acute Pain for Use in the Emergency Department
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Verbally administered numerical rating scales (NRSs) from 0 to 10 are often used to measure pain, but they have not been validated in the emergency department (ED) setting. The authors wished to assess the comparability of the NRS and visual analog scale (VAS) as measures of acute pain, and to identify the minimum clinically significant difference in pain that could be detected on the NRS. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of a convenience sample of adults presenting with acute pain to an urban ED. Patients verbally rated pain intensity as an integer from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10 = worst possible pain), and marked a 10-cm horizontal VAS bounded by these descriptors. VAS and NRS data were obtained at presentation, 30 minutes later, and 60 minutes later. At 30 and 60 minutes, patients were asked whether their pain was "much less," "a little less," "about the same," "a little more," or "much more." Differences between consecutive pairs of measurements on the VAS and NRS obtained at 30-minute intervals were calculated for each of the five categories of pain descriptor. The association between VAS and NRS scores was expressed as a correlation coefficient. The VAS scores were regressed on the NRS scores in order to assess the equivalence of the measures. The mean changes associated with descriptors "a little less" or "a little more" were combined to define the minimum clinically significant difference in pain measured on the VAS and NRS. RESULTS: Of 108 patients entered, 103 provided data at 30 minutes and 86 at 60 minutes. NRS scores were strongly correlated to VAS scores at all time periods (r = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.93 to 0.95). The slope of the regression line was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.06) and the y-intercept was -0.34 (95% CI = -0.67 to -0.01). The minimum clinically significant difference in pain was 1.3 (95% CI = 1.0 to 1.5) on the NRS and 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1 to 1.7) on the VAS. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the verbally administered NRS can be substituted for the VAS in acute pain measurement.
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
Reliability of the Visual Analog Scale for Measurement of Acute Pain
Bijur, P. E., Silver, W., & Gallagher, E. J. (2001) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x · Cited by 2,067
Self-citationPrice, D. D., Bush, F. M., Long, S., & Harkins, S. W. (1994) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3 · Cited by 1,174
Gallagher, E. J., Liebman, M., & Bijur, P. E. (2001) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1067/mem.2001.118863 · Cited by 1,024
Self-citationKelly, A.-M. (2001) · Emergency Medicine Journal · doi:10.1136/emj.18.3.205 · Cited by 969
A Comparison of Pain Rating Scales by Sampling From Clinical Trial Data
Breivik, E. K., Björnsson, G. A., & Skovlund, E. (2000) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/00002508-200003000-00005 · Cited by 687
Kelly, A. (1998) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.1998.tb02667.x · Cited by 626
The Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Physician–assigned Visual Analog Pain Scores
Todd, K. H., & Funk, J. P. (1996) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03402.x · Cited by 276
Comparative study of methods of measuring acute pain intensity in an ED
Berthier, F., Potel, G., Leconte, P., Touze, M.-D., & Baron, D. (1998) · The American Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0735-6757(98)90029-8 · Cited by 215
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
von Baeyer, C. L., Spagrud, L. J., McCormick, J. C., Choo, E., Neville, K., & Connelly, M. A. (2009) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.03.002 · Cited by 575
Visual Analogue Scale: Evaluation of the Instrument for the Assessment of Pruritus
Reich, A., Heisig, M., Phan, N., Taneda, K., Takamori, K., Takeuchi, S., Furue, M., Blome, C., Augustin, M., Ständer, S., et al. (2012) · Acta Dermato Venereologica · doi:10.2340/00015555-1265 · Cited by 504
Biau, D. J., Kernéis, S., & Porcher, R. (2008) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0346-9 · Cited by 428
Shafshak, T. S., & Elnemr, R. (2021) · JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1097/rhu.0000000000001320 · Cited by 406
Metadata
- Authors
- Bijur, P. E., Latimer, C. T., & Gallagher, E. J.
- Venue
- Academic Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-04-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 390-392
- ISSN
- 1069-6563 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003065114
- Cited by
- 933
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 16.80
- 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: Validation of a Verbally Administered Numerical Rating Scale of Acute Pain for Use in the Emergency Department. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb01355.x
- The paper
- Bijur, P. E., Latimer, C. T., & Gallagher, E. J. (2003). Validation of a Verbally Administered Numerical Rating Scale of Acute Pain for Use in the Emergency Department. Academic Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb01355.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.