Assessment of the correspondence between the scales used in pain measurement.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47924/neurotarget201885Keywords:
pain, scalesAbstract
Objective: Evaluate the correspondence between different scales used for measuring pain intensity.
Methodology: Prospective Study. Information related to the following variables was collected: Pain intensity using the following scales: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numerical Analog Scale (ENA), Verbal Analog Scale (EVERA); Demographic (Age and Gender) and Pain Control
Results: The sample shows a total of 307 patients, 232 women (75%) were identified. The mean age was 62 years. With regard to pain intensity VAS average 3.8 and ENA average 3.4 a statistically significant difference was identified. In EVERA categories 22% of cases did not show pain (67 patients), 42% considered it mild (129 patients), 22% moderate (68 patients), 11% severe (33 patients), and 4% insupportable (11 patients). Of all participants 63% of patients had “controlled” pain (193 subjects) and 37% reported it as “uncontrolled” pain (115 cases).
Conclusion: Averages observed in the ENA (3.4) and EVA (3.8) showed statistical significance with approximate variation of 0.4 points, showing lower numbers when compared to other studies. We believe the possibility that both scales can have the same value on the assessment of pain intensity. A correspondence between severe EVERA and 5.7 points in numerical scales valuation was documented. Analgesics chronic pain protocols could possibly target analgesia on the basis of three variables (intolerable severe pain, “uncontrolled”, and intensity of 5 to 6). This method will have to be evaluated in future publications also take into account the drug regimens provided.
Metrics
References
Breivik H, Collet B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impacto on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:287-333.
Covarrubias A, Guevara U, Gutiérrez C, Betancourt J, Córdova J. epidemiología del dolor crónico en México. Rev Mex Anest. 2010;4:207-13.
Guevara U, Covarrubias A, Rodríguez R, Carrasco A, Aragón G, Ayón H. Parámetros de práctica para el manejo del dolor en México. Cir Ciruj. 2007; 5:379-99.
Merskey H. Pain terms: a list with definitions and notes on usage. Recommended by the Subcommittee on Taxonomy. Pain. 1979; 6: 249-52.
Guevara-López U, Covarrubias-Gómez, Hernández Ortiz A, Grupo de consenso para el desarrollo de los parámetros de práctica para el manejo de dolor agudo. Desarrollo de los parámetros de práctica para el manejo del dolor agudo. Rev Mex Anes. 2004; 27: 200-4.
Covarrubias Gómez A, Guevara López U. Capítulo 10: Evaluación y alivio del dolor posoperatorio. En: Carrillo Esper (eds). Evaluación y manejo perioperatorio. Alfil. México. 2012:111-21.
American Society of Anesthesiologists Task force on Chronic Pain Management, American society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Practice guidelines for chronic pain management: an update report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Chronic Pain Management and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Anesthesiology. 2010; 112: 810-33.
Covarrubias A, Guevara U, Lara A, et al. Características de los enfermos que acuden a clínicas del dolor por primera vez. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2008; 46 (5): 467-72 in Pain in America Survey. www.ampainsoc.org.
The American Pain Society. Chronic Pain in America: Road blocks to Relief. 1999.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Alfredo Covarrubias-Gómez, Teresa Chavarria-Pérez, Susana Ruíz-Ramírez, Jonathan J. Mendoza-Reyes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
