» Articles » PMID: 30211382

Validation of Digital Visual Analog Scale Pain Scoring With a Traditional Paper-based Visual Analog Scale in Adults

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2018 Sep 14
PMID 30211382
Citations 328
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The visual analog scale (VAS) is a validated, subjective measure for acute and chronic pain. Scores are recorded by making a handwritten mark on a 10-cm line that represents a continuum between "no pain" and "worst pain."

Methods: One hundred consecutive patients aged ≥18 years who presented with a chief complaint of pain were asked to record pain scores via a paper VAS and digitally via both the laptop computer and mobile phone. Ninety-eight subjects, 51 men (age, 44 ± 16 years) and 47 women (age, 46 ± 15 years), were included. A mixed-model analysis of covariance with the Bonferroni post hoc test was used to detect differences between the paper and digital VAS scores. A Bland-Altman analysis was used to test for instrument agreement between the platforms. The minimal clinically important difference was set at 1.4 cm (14% of total scale length) for detecting clinical relevance between the three VAS platforms. A paired one-tailed Student -test was used to determine whether differences between the digital and paper measurement platforms exceeded 14% ( < 0.05).

Results: A significant difference in scores was found between the mobile phone-based (32.9% ± 0.4%) and both the laptop computer- and paper-based platforms (31.0% ± 0.4%, < 0.01 for both). These differences were not clinically relevant (minimal clinically important difference <1.4 cm). No statistically significant difference was observed between the paper and laptop computer platforms. Measurement agreement was found between the paper- and laptop computer-based platforms (mean difference, 0.0% ± 0.5%; no proportional bias detected) but not between the paper- and mobile phone-based platforms (mean difference, 1.9% ± 0.5%; proportional bias detected).

Conclusion: No clinically relevant difference exists between the traditional paper-based VAS assessment and VAS scores obtained from laptop computer- and mobile phone-based platforms.

Citing Articles

Predicting therapy dropout in chronic pain management: a machine learning approach to cannabis treatment.

Visibelli A, Finetti R, Roncaglia B, Poli P, Spiga O, Santucci A Front Artif Intell. 2025; 8:1557894.

PMID: 40051572 PMC: 11882547. DOI: 10.3389/frai.2025.1557894.


Orthopaedic Consultation is Associated With Fewer Patient-Perceived Barriers to Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Mannstadt I, Gibbons J, Amen T, Rajan M, Young S, Tischler H Arthroplast Today. 2025; 32:101620.

PMID: 40035045 PMC: 11874531. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2025.101620.


Study Protocol for a Yoga-Based Lifestyle Modification Program for Leucorrhea Disorders.

Mittal A, Krishna N, Singh D, Kavuri V Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e78294.

PMID: 40027048 PMC: 11872154. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.78294.


The utility of flexible and navigable suction access sheath (FANS) in patients undergoing same session flexible ureteroscopy for bilateral renal calculi: a global prospective multicenter analysis by EAU endourology.

Gauhar V, Somani B, Castellani D, Fong K, Gadzhiev N, Persaud S World J Urol. 2025; 43(1):142.

PMID: 40019574 PMC: 11870961. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-025-05477-9.


Meniscal repair with concomitant suture-augmented ACL repair versus reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study.

Garside J, Bellaire C, Perraut G, Argintar E Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2025; 35(1):79.

PMID: 40009107 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-025-04203-w.


References
1.
Jamison R, Gracely R, Raymond S, Levine J, Marino B, Herrmann T . Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: a randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers. Pain. 2002; 99(1-2):341-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00178-1. View

2.
Breivik H, Borchgrevink P, Allen S, Rosseland L, Romundstad L, Hals E . Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth. 2008; 101(1):17-24. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aen103. View

3.
Farrar J, Portenoy R, Berlin J, Kinman J, Strom B . Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain. 2000; 88(3):287-294. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00339-0. View

4.
Gaston-Johansson F . Measurement of pain: the psychometric properties of the Pain-O-Meter, a simple, inexpensive pain assessment tool that could change health care practices. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1996; 12(3):172-81. DOI: 10.1016/0885-3924(96)00128-5. View

5.
Boonstra A, Schiphorst Preuper H, Reneman M, Posthumus J, Stewart R . Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008; 31(2):165-9. DOI: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e3282fc0f93. View