Comparison of numerical and verbal rating scales to measure pain exacerbations in patients with chronic cancer pain

Cinzia Brunelli, Ernesto Zecca, Cinzia Martini, Tiziana Campa, Elena Fagnoni, Michela Bagnasco, Luigi Lanata, Augusto Caraceni, Cinzia Brunelli, Ernesto Zecca, Cinzia Martini, Tiziana Campa, Elena Fagnoni, Michela Bagnasco, Luigi Lanata, Augusto Caraceni

Abstract

Background: Numerical rating scales (NRS), and verbal rating scales (VRS) showed to be reliable and valid tools for subjective cancer pain measurement, but no one of them consistently proved to be superior to the other. Aim of the present study is to compare NRS and VRS performance in assessing breakthrough or episodic pain (BP-EP) exacerbations.

Methods: In a cross sectional multicentre study carried out on a sample of 240 advanced cancer patients with pain, background pain and BP-EP intensity in the last 24 hours were measured using both a 6-point VRS and a 0-10 NRS. In order to evaluate the reproducibility of the two scales, a subsample of 60 patients was randomly selected and the questionnaire was administered for a second time three to four hours later. The proportion of "inconsistent" (background pain intensity higher than or equal to peak pain intensity) evaluations was calculated to compare the two scales capability in discriminating between background and peak pain intensity and Cohen's K was calculated to compare their reproducibility.

Results: NRS revealed higher discriminatory capability than VRS in distinguishing between background and peak pain intensity with a lower proportion of patients giving inconsistent evaluations (14% vs. 25%). NRS also showed higher reproducibility when measuring pain exacerbations (Cohen's K of 0.86 for NRS vs. 0.53 for VRS) while the reproducibility of the two scales in evaluating background pain was similar (Cohen's K of 0.80 vs. 0.77).

Conclusions: Our results suggest that, in the measurement of cancer pain exacerbations, patients use NRS more appropriately than VRS and as such NRS should be preferred to VRS in this patient's population.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scores distribution of background pain intensities as measured by VRS (A) and NRS (B) and scatter plot * of the two measures (C). Detailed legend: *In order to avoid an high number of points plotted on top of each other, points have been artificially distributed round their real original position.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scores distribution of peak pain intensities as measured by VRS (A) and NRS (B) and scatter plot (*) of the two measures (C). Detailed legend: (*) In order to avoid an high number of points plotted on top of each other, points have been artificially distributed round their real original position.

References

    1. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, Kerns RD, Stucki G, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Carr DB, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dionne R, Galer BS, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Kramer LD, Manning DC, Martin S, McCormick CG, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Robbins W, Robinson JP, Rothman M, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stein W, Tollett J, Wernicke J, Witter J. IMMPACT. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1-2):9–19. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012.
    1. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Burke LB, Gershon R, Rothman M, Scott J, Allen RR, Atkinson JH, Chandler J, Cleeland C, Cowan P, Dimitrova R, Dionne R, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Jensen MP, Kellstein D, Kerns RD, Manning DC, Martin S, Max MB, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Moulin DE, Nurmikko T, Quessy S, Raja S, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Robinson JP, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stucki G, Tollett J, von Stein T, Wallace MS, Wernicke J, White RE, Williams AC, Witter J, Wyrwich KW. Initiative on Methods Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. Developing patient-reported outcome measures for pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2006;125(3):208–215. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.09.028.
    1. Caraceni A, Cherny N, Fainsinger R, Kaasa S, Poulain P, Radbruch L, De Conno F. Pain measurement tools and methods in clinical research in palliative care: recommendations of an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002;23(3):239–255. doi: 10.1016/S0885-3924(01)00409-2.
    1. Garcia SF, Cella D, Clauser SB, Flynn KE, Lad T, Lai JS, Reeve BB, Smith AW, Stone AA, Weinfurt K. Standardizing patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer clinical trials: a patient-reported outcomes measurement information system initiative. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(32):5106–5112. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.2341.
    1. Gordon DB, Dahl JL, Miaskowski C, McCarberg B, Todd KH, Paice JA, Lipman AG, Bookbinder M, Sanders SH, Turk DC, Carr DB. American pain society recommendations for improving the quality of acute and cancer pain management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(14):1574–1580. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.14.1574.
    1. Kaasa S, Loge JH, Fayers P, Caraceni A, Strasser F, Hjermstad MJ, Higginson I, Radbruch L, Haugen DF. Symptom assessment in palliative care: a need for international collaboration. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(23):3867–3873. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.8881.
    1. Hjermstad MJ, Gibbins J, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Loge JH, Kaasa S. EPCRC, European Palliative Care Research Collaborative. Pain assessment tools in palliative care: an urgent need for consensus. Palliat Med. 2008;22(8):895–903. doi: 10.1177/0269216308095701.
    1. Holen JC, Hjermstad MJ, Loge JH, Fayers PM, Caraceni A, De Conno F, Forbes K, Furst CJ, Radbruch L, Kaasa S. Pain assessment tools: is the content appropriate for use in palliative care? J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006;32(6):567–580. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.05.025.
    1. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1975;1(4):379–384. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(75)90075-5.
    1. Kremer E, Atkinson JH, Ignelzi RJ. Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain. 1981;10(2):241–248. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(81)90199-8.
    1. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27(1):117–126. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9.
    1. Jensen MP, Karoly P. Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. Handbook of pain assessment. 2001;2:15–34.
    1. De Conno F, Caraceni A, Gamba A, Mariani L, Abbattista A, Brunelli C, La Mura A, Ventafridda V. Pain measurement in cancer patients: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1994;57(2):161–166. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(94)90219-4.
    1. Briggs M, Closs JS. A descriptive study of the use of visual analogue scales and verbal rating scales for the assessment of postoperative pain in orthopedic patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999;18(6):438–446. doi: 10.1016/S0885-3924(99)00092-5.
    1. Breivik EK, Bjornsson GA, Skovlund E. A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data. Clin J Pain. 2000;16(1):22–28. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200003000-00005.
    1. Radbruch L, Sabatowski R, Loick G, Jonen-Thielemann I, Kasper M, Gondek B, Lehmann KA, Thielemann I. Cognitive impairment and its influence on pain and symptom assessment in a palliative care unit: development of a Minimal Documentation System. Palliat Med. 2000;14(4):266–276. doi: 10.1191/026921600672986600.
    1. Lara-Munoz C, De Leon SP, Feinstein AR, Puente A, Wells CK. Comparison of three rating scales for measuring subjective phenomena in clinical research. I. Use of experimentally controlled auditory stimuli. Arch Med Res. 2004;35(1):43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2003.07.007.
    1. Hartrick CT, Kovan JP, Shapiro S. The numeric rating scale for clinical pain measurement: a ratio measure? Pain Pract. 2003;3(4):310–316. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-7085.2003.03034.x.
    1. Lund I, Lundeberg T, Sandberg L, Budh CN, Kowalski J, Svensson E. Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:31. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-31.
    1. Gagliese L. Assessment of pain in elderly people. Handbook of pain assessment. 2001;7:119–133.
    1. Walsh D. Practical problems in pain measurements. Pain. 1984;19(1):96–98. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(84)90070-8.
    1. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM. What is the maximum number of levels needed in pain intensity measurement? Pain. 1994;58(3):387–392. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(94)90133-3.
    1. Caraceni A, Mendoza TR, Mencaglia E, Baratella C, Edwards K, Forjaz MJ, Martini C, Serlin RC, de Conno F, Cleeland CS. A validation study of an Italian version of the Brief Pain Inventory (Breve Questionario per la Valutazione del Dolore) Pain. 1996;65(1):87–92. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00156-5.
    1. Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med. 2002;21(9):1331–1335. doi: 10.1002/sim.1108.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Peters ML, Patijn J, Lame I. Pain assessment in younger and older pain patients: psychometric properties and patient preference of five commonly used measures of pain intensity. Pain Med. 2007;8(7):601–610. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00311.x.
    1. Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? Pain. 1997;72(1-2):95–97. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(97)00005-5.
    1. Paul SM, Zelman DC, Smith M, Miaskowski C. Categorizing the severity of cancer pain: further exploration of the establishment of cutpoints. Pain. 2005;113(1-2):37–44. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.014.
    1. Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, Edwards KR, Cleeland CS. When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain. 1995;61(2):277–284. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(94)00178-H.
    1. Rosier EM, Iadarola MJ, Coghill RC. Reproducibility of pain measurement and pain perception. Pain. 2002;98(1-2):205–216. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00048-9.
    1. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994;23(2):129–138.
    1. Jensen MP. The validity and reliability of pain measures in adults with cancer. J Pain. 2003;4(1):2–21. doi: 10.1054/jpai.2003.1.
    1. Caraceni A, Galbiati A, Brunelli C, Gorni G, Martini C, Zecca E, De Conno F. Cancer patient compliance in the self-administration of a pain assessment tool. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004;27(5):417–424. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.01.002.
    1. Herr KA, Spratt K, Mobily PR, Richardson G. Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(4):207–219. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200407000-00002.
    1. Ponce de Leon S, Lara-Munoz C, Feinstein AR, Wells CK. A comparison of three rating scales for measuring subjective phenomena in clinical research. II. Use of experimentally controlled visual stimuli. Arch Med Res. 2004;35(2):157–162.
    1. Price DD, Bush FM, Long S, Harkins SW. A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales. Pain. 1994;56(2):217–226. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3.
    1. Zelman DC, Dukes E, Brandenburg N, Bostrom A, Gore M. Identification of cut-points for mild, moderate and severe pain due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain. 2005;115(1-2):29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.01.028.
    1. Cepeda MS, Africano JM, Polo R, Alcala R, Carr DB. Agreement between percentage pain reductions calculated from numeric rating scores of pain intensity and those reported by patients with acute or cancer pain. Pain. 2003;106(3):439–442. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2003.09.006.
    1. Gracely RH, McGrath F, Dubner R. Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors. Pain. 1978;5(1):5–18. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(78)90020-9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren