• C A Bodian, G Freedman, S Hossain, J B Eisenkraft, and Y Beilin.
• Department of Biomathematical Sciences, Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York University, New York, USA. bodian@camelot.mssm.edu
• Anesthesiology. 2001 Dec 1;95(6):1356-61.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsVisual 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.ResultsVisual 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.ConclusionsWhen 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.

14 keywords...

hide…