Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

A comparison of pain registration by Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale – a cross-sectional study of primary triage registration

Jofrid Kollltveit, Malin Osaland, Marianne Reimers, View ORCID ProfileMagnus Berle
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.20225367
Jofrid Kollltveit
1University of Bergen – Faculty of Medicine, Bergen, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Malin Osaland
1University of Bergen – Faculty of Medicine, Bergen, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marianne Reimers
2Haukeland University Hospital, Emergency Clinic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Magnus Berle
3Haukeland University Hospital, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and University of Bergen, Department of Clinical Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Magnus Berle
  • For correspondence: Magnus.berle@uib.no
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Pain is a subjective sensation; self-reporting is important for quantifying pain intensity. There are several different validated tools for this, such as Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale. In the clinic, these terms are often used as equivalent. The objective of this study was to examine correlation and agreement between the pain registration tools in triage in an emergency department.

Materials and Methods The study was performed in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Haukeland University Hospital in the period June-August 2019. We registered the pain score with two tools in 200 unselected patients in emergency admission with pain. In addition, we registrered gender, age, triage and general department affiliation.

Results We found a strong correlation between the pain registration tools by Spearmans correlation test (rho=0,930, p<0,001). There were no significant difference between the pain registration tools within the subgroups. Bland-Altman analysis show agreement between the two pain registration tools.

Conclusions In an Emergency Department triage is it acceptable to use Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale as equivalent, as long as the correct terminology is used.

Background

Pain is a subjective sensation, which is important to quantify in a clinical setting (1, 2). Pain score is a part of defining the degree of urgency of diagnostics and treatment, and is important for evaluating the effect of treatment. There are several validated tools to rate pain, as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) (2, 3). Using VAS, the patient defines the degree of pain on a visual scale without numeric values, while the values are visible on the back side for the registrar. NRS is a verbal numeric scale, where the patient grades their own pain on a scale between 0 and 10. Both methods are much used in clinical practice and research (3). In the clinic, the terms are often used as interchangeable, and NRS is in general noted as VAS (4). Several studies have shown a strong statistical correlation between VAS and NRS scores (1, 5, 6, 7). Some studies show good agreement between methods (1, 6) while others find a larger discrepancy (5, 7, 8). The objective of this study was to examine correlation and agreement between VAS and NRS score in patients admitted with pain to an emergency department in Norway.

Materials and Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study of pain in primary triage registration at the emergency department at Haukeland University Hospital in the period June to August 2019. As a part of the primary triage at admission, the nurse collected pain score by use of NRS. The nurse asked the patient to grade their pain with an integer between 0 and 10, where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst thinkable pain. After the nurse had finished the triage, the patients were asked to participate in a study. After oral approval, the patient was again scored with VAS. We used a horizontal VAS-ruler (0-100 mm) with the endpoints “no pain” to the left and “worst thinkable pain” to the right. The patient graded their pain with a moveable plastic marker to their pain level. We transcribed the value in mm and converted to the closest integer (0-10). The following variables were registered on paper: VAS, NRS, gender, age, triage and general department affiliation.

The target population were patients with pain in triage in the Emergency Department. We made a general estimation in advance on the number of patients to include, based on presumed sufficient material and a general achivable number. 200 unselected patients with pain were included, no clinical groups of patients were excluded. Exclusion criteria were age under 18 years, lack of competence to consent, cognitive failure as well as lack of lingual or motor skills.

The study included patients after informed oral consent. We have in our study design refrained from written informed consent to reduce the amount of registered personal information. The patient information was anonymized immediately after inclusion. The procedure of inclusion was made in agreement with the Data Protection Officer of the Hospital and the Regional Ethics Board of Western Norway.

We predefined a null hypothesis of no significant difference between VAS and NRS value. A priori acceptable clinical difference between the scores were defined to a maximum of +/-1, based on repeatability of test-retest of VAS (1). The collected data were organized in MS Excel, then analyzed in SPSS v2.5. We utilized Spearman correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot to study correlation and agreement between VAS and NRS value. Kruskal-Wallis test was used for the subgroup analyses between VAS and NRS for gender (female/male), age (over/under 30 years old), triage (green/yellow/orange) and general department affiliation (surgery/medicine)

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics with mean for VAS and NRS with standard deviation, as well as values for statistical tools. Spearman correlation coefficient (rho = 0,93) show strong correlation between VAS and NRS value (p < 0,001). Subgroup analysis by Kruskal-Wallis test does not show significant differences between VAS and NRS-value within the subgroups (p < 0,05). Bland-Altman plot (Figure 1) show agreement between VAS and NRS-value as pain scores.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Descriptive statistics and statistical calcaltions

Figure 1:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1:

Bland-Altman plot of NRS vs VAS.

Discussion

The strength of this study is that pain was reported by VAS short time after NRS by standardized questions in such a way that the information to the patient group was the same. The data collection was in daytime and evening in an un-selected patient group to ensure a more representative material.

The study has some limitations. Presenting VAS short time after NRS may introduce a bias. Collection of oral informed consent creates an emphasis on the fact that this is a study, with risk of patients attempting to answer the same. All patients were presented to NRS before VAS, where the triage nurse collected NRS-value while the VAS-value was collected by two medical students. We do only present a single time point and the data cannot tell of changes in VAS versus NRS over time. We have not examined which method is the better, only whether the two methods produce equal results. Earlier studies establish a consensus that NRS is easier to perform than VAS (2, 9). The results of this study do not establish that the method is equal in all populations. There are similar studies in other populations, among them orthopedic patients and cancer patients. These studies show good correlation between VAS and NRS (10, 11).

There are conflicting studies on the agreement between NRS and VAS (1, 5, 6, 7, 8). Our results support the studies showing good correlation and agreement between the methods (1, 6). We cannot abandon the null hypothesis of no significant difference and the limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plot is whitin the a priori clinical acceptable difference. This can indicate that the methods are interchangeable. NRS being noted as VAS will not cause errors in the clinic but we would advocate the use of proper terminology.

Conclusions

The study shows a strong statistical correlation and a good agreement for reported scores between VAS and NRS. In an Emergency Department triage is it acceptable to use Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale as equivalent, as long as the correct terminology is used.

Data Availability

The data in anonymized form is included as supplementary data.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Data Protection Officer of the Hospital and the Regional Ethics Board of Western Norway, approval REK Vest (2019/484).

Consent for publication

Patients were included by oral consent to limit registered personal information in accordance with the Data Protection Officer and the Regional Ethics Committee.

Availability of Data

The data in anonymized form is included as supplementary data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

The article costs is funded by University of Bergen grants to MB.

Authors’ contributions

Patient inclusion and data collection JK, MO. Project plan, implementation and data analysis JK, MO, MR, MB. Writing of manuscript JK, MO, MB. Original idea MB. All Authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Figure and table text

Additional file 1: Anonymized registered data

List of abbreviations

VAS
Visual Analog Scale
NRS
Numeric Reported Scale

References

  1. 1.↵
    Bahreini M, Jalili M, Moradi-Lakeh M. A comparison of three self-report pain scales in adults with acute pain. J Emerg Med 2015; 48: 10–8.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Karcioglu O, Topacoglu H, Dikme O et al. A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use? Am J Emerg Med 2018; 36: 707–14
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Ferreria-Valenta MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain 2011; 152: 2399–404
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Faiz KW. VAS – visuell analog skala. Tidsskr Nor Legeforen 2014; 134: 323
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Holdgate A, Asha S, Craig J et al. Comparison of a verbal numeric rating scale with the visual analogue scale for the measurement of acute pain. Emergency Medicine 2003; 15: 441–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    Bijur PE, Latimer CT, Gallagher EJ. Validation of a Verbally Administered Numerical Rating Scale of Acute Pain for Use in the Emergency Department. Acad Emerg Med 2003; 10: 390–2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Mohan H, Ryan J, Whelan B et al. The end of the line? The Visual Analogue Scale and Verbal Numerical Rating Scale as pain assessment tools in the emergency department. Emerg Med J 2010; 27: 372–5
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Hartrick AT, Kovan JP, Shapiro S. The Numeric Rating Scale for Clinical Pain Measurement: A Ratio Measure? Pain Pract 2003; 3: 310–6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Safikhani S, Gries KS, Trudeau JJ et al. Response scale selection in adult pain measures: results from a literature review. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2018; 2: 40
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Paice JA, Cohen FL. Validity of a verbally administered numeric rating scale to measure cancer pain intensity. Cancer Nurs 1997; 20: 88–93
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Alghadir AH, Anwer S, Iqbal A et al. Test–retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain. J Pain Res 2018; 11: 851–6
    OpenUrl
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 04, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A comparison of pain registration by Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale – a cross-sectional study of primary triage registration
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A comparison of pain registration by Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale – a cross-sectional study of primary triage registration
Jofrid Kollltveit, Malin Osaland, Marianne Reimers, Magnus Berle
medRxiv 2020.11.03.20225367; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.20225367
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A comparison of pain registration by Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale – a cross-sectional study of primary triage registration
Jofrid Kollltveit, Malin Osaland, Marianne Reimers, Magnus Berle
medRxiv 2020.11.03.20225367; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.20225367

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Emergency Medicine
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (280)
  • Allergy and Immunology (579)
  • Anesthesia (140)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1947)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (252)
  • Dermatology (185)
  • Emergency Medicine (333)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (700)
  • Epidemiology (11108)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (626)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3182)
  • Geriatric Medicine (309)
  • Health Economics (563)
  • Health Informatics (2043)
  • Health Policy (863)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (782)
  • Hematology (310)
  • HIV/AIDS (682)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12729)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (707)
  • Medical Education (317)
  • Medical Ethics (92)
  • Nephrology (336)
  • Neurology (2993)
  • Nursing (164)
  • Nutrition (465)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (589)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (614)
  • Oncology (1556)
  • Ophthalmology (478)
  • Orthopedics (185)
  • Otolaryngology (266)
  • Pain Medicine (202)
  • Palliative Medicine (57)
  • Pathology (403)
  • Pediatrics (914)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (382)
  • Primary Care Research (355)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2789)
  • Public and Global Health (5597)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1095)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (635)
  • Respiratory Medicine (761)
  • Rheumatology (339)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (311)
  • Sports Medicine (289)
  • Surgery (343)
  • Toxicology (48)
  • Transplantation (159)
  • Urology (133)