Comparison of a novel direct measure of rapid pain intensity change to traditional serial 100 mm VAS measurement of pain intensity

Mark Laslett, Peter McNair, Angela Cadogan, Wayne Hing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Key diagnostic decisions often turn on measurement of change in pain intensity after diagnostic anesthetic blocks. This study aimed to introduce a new direct measure pain intensity change and compare it with percent change as calculated from the traditional preprocedure and postprocedure pain visual analog scales.

METHODS: Shoulder pain patients enrolled in a diagnostic accuracy study comparing clinical variables with image-guided local anesthetic injections were assessed with both the traditional preprocedure and postprocedure visual analog scales and the new direct method. Percent change in pain intensity was calculated with both instruments and were compared using statistical methods. The percentage pain reduction used to classify patients as responders was 80%.

RESULTS: Patients received anesthetic injections to targeted shoulder structures (N=146, 331 procedures). For data above the 80% pain reduction criterion, Lin Concordance statistic ranged from 0.22 to 0.55. Bland and Altman analyses revealed positive bias and the amount of reported pain reduction was higher with the traditional method. For data above the 80% pain reduction criterion, the bias was higher and ranged from 4.8% to 12.6%.

CONCLUSIONS: The 2 methods are not interchangeable. The new method measures the pain intensity change dimension directly, whereas the traditional method estimates change indirectly by calculation. Face validity is better served by adopting the new method for decisions regarding whether a patient is a "responder" or "nonresponder" to diagnostic blocks. The traditional method should be retained for estimation of pain intensity preprocedure and the duration of pain relief postprocedure.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)675-82
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Journal of Pain
Volume28
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pain Measurement
Pain
Anesthetics
Shoulder Pain
Injections
Local Anesthetics
Visual Analog Scale
Reproducibility of Results

Cite this

@article{86cb497557694d0896c78dc61dd9bca6,
title = "Comparison of a novel direct measure of rapid pain intensity change to traditional serial 100 mm VAS measurement of pain intensity",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Key diagnostic decisions often turn on measurement of change in pain intensity after diagnostic anesthetic blocks. This study aimed to introduce a new direct measure pain intensity change and compare it with percent change as calculated from the traditional preprocedure and postprocedure pain visual analog scales.METHODS: Shoulder pain patients enrolled in a diagnostic accuracy study comparing clinical variables with image-guided local anesthetic injections were assessed with both the traditional preprocedure and postprocedure visual analog scales and the new direct method. Percent change in pain intensity was calculated with both instruments and were compared using statistical methods. The percentage pain reduction used to classify patients as responders was 80{\%}.RESULTS: Patients received anesthetic injections to targeted shoulder structures (N=146, 331 procedures). For data above the 80{\%} pain reduction criterion, Lin Concordance statistic ranged from 0.22 to 0.55. Bland and Altman analyses revealed positive bias and the amount of reported pain reduction was higher with the traditional method. For data above the 80{\%} pain reduction criterion, the bias was higher and ranged from 4.8{\%} to 12.6{\%}.CONCLUSIONS: The 2 methods are not interchangeable. The new method measures the pain intensity change dimension directly, whereas the traditional method estimates change indirectly by calculation. Face validity is better served by adopting the new method for decisions regarding whether a patient is a {"}responder{"} or {"}nonresponder{"} to diagnostic blocks. The traditional method should be retained for estimation of pain intensity preprocedure and the duration of pain relief postprocedure.",
author = "Mark Laslett and Peter McNair and Angela Cadogan and Wayne Hing",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1097/AJP.0b013e31823dd34e",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "675--82",
journal = "Clinical Journal of Pain",
issn = "0749-8047",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

Comparison of a novel direct measure of rapid pain intensity change to traditional serial 100 mm VAS measurement of pain intensity. / Laslett, Mark; McNair, Peter; Cadogan, Angela; Hing, Wayne.

In: Clinical Journal of Pain, Vol. 28, No. 8, 2012, p. 675-82.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of a novel direct measure of rapid pain intensity change to traditional serial 100 mm VAS measurement of pain intensity

AU - Laslett, Mark

AU - McNair, Peter

AU - Cadogan, Angela

AU - Hing, Wayne

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Key diagnostic decisions often turn on measurement of change in pain intensity after diagnostic anesthetic blocks. This study aimed to introduce a new direct measure pain intensity change and compare it with percent change as calculated from the traditional preprocedure and postprocedure pain visual analog scales.METHODS: Shoulder pain patients enrolled in a diagnostic accuracy study comparing clinical variables with image-guided local anesthetic injections were assessed with both the traditional preprocedure and postprocedure visual analog scales and the new direct method. Percent change in pain intensity was calculated with both instruments and were compared using statistical methods. The percentage pain reduction used to classify patients as responders was 80%.RESULTS: Patients received anesthetic injections to targeted shoulder structures (N=146, 331 procedures). For data above the 80% pain reduction criterion, Lin Concordance statistic ranged from 0.22 to 0.55. Bland and Altman analyses revealed positive bias and the amount of reported pain reduction was higher with the traditional method. For data above the 80% pain reduction criterion, the bias was higher and ranged from 4.8% to 12.6%.CONCLUSIONS: The 2 methods are not interchangeable. The new method measures the pain intensity change dimension directly, whereas the traditional method estimates change indirectly by calculation. Face validity is better served by adopting the new method for decisions regarding whether a patient is a "responder" or "nonresponder" to diagnostic blocks. The traditional method should be retained for estimation of pain intensity preprocedure and the duration of pain relief postprocedure.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Key diagnostic decisions often turn on measurement of change in pain intensity after diagnostic anesthetic blocks. This study aimed to introduce a new direct measure pain intensity change and compare it with percent change as calculated from the traditional preprocedure and postprocedure pain visual analog scales.METHODS: Shoulder pain patients enrolled in a diagnostic accuracy study comparing clinical variables with image-guided local anesthetic injections were assessed with both the traditional preprocedure and postprocedure visual analog scales and the new direct method. Percent change in pain intensity was calculated with both instruments and were compared using statistical methods. The percentage pain reduction used to classify patients as responders was 80%.RESULTS: Patients received anesthetic injections to targeted shoulder structures (N=146, 331 procedures). For data above the 80% pain reduction criterion, Lin Concordance statistic ranged from 0.22 to 0.55. Bland and Altman analyses revealed positive bias and the amount of reported pain reduction was higher with the traditional method. For data above the 80% pain reduction criterion, the bias was higher and ranged from 4.8% to 12.6%.CONCLUSIONS: The 2 methods are not interchangeable. The new method measures the pain intensity change dimension directly, whereas the traditional method estimates change indirectly by calculation. Face validity is better served by adopting the new method for decisions regarding whether a patient is a "responder" or "nonresponder" to diagnostic blocks. The traditional method should be retained for estimation of pain intensity preprocedure and the duration of pain relief postprocedure.

U2 - 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31823dd34e

DO - 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31823dd34e

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 675

EP - 682

JO - Clinical Journal of Pain

JF - Clinical Journal of Pain

SN - 0749-8047

IS - 8

ER -