Pain measurement: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) in clinical trials with OTC analgesics in headache

Pain usually is the major complaint of patients with problems of the back, thus making pain evaluation a fundamental requisite in the outcome assessment in spinal surgery. Pain intensity, pain-related disability, pain duration and pain affect are the aspects that define pain and its effects. For each of these aspects, different assessment instruments exist and are discussed in terms of advantages and disadvantages. Risk factors for the development of chronic pain have been a major topic in pain research in the past two decades. Now, it has been realised that psychological and psychosocial factors may substantially influence pain perception in patients with chronic pain and thus may influence the surgical outcome. With this background, pain acceptance, pain tolerance and pain-related anxiety as factors influencing coping strategies are discussed. Finally, a recommendation for a minimum as well as for a more comprehensive pain assessment is given.

The goals of this study were to examine agreement and estimate differences in sensitivity between pain assessment scales. Multiple simultaneous pain assessments by patients in acute pain after oral surgery were used to compare a four-category verbal rating scale (VRS-4) and an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS-11) with a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). The sensitivity of the scales (i.e., their ability [power] to detect differences between treatments) was compared in a simulation model by sampling from true pairs of observations using varying treatment differences of predetermined size. There was considerable variability in VAS scores within each VRS-4 or NRS-11 category both between patients and for repeated measures from the same patient. Simulation experiments showed that the VAS was systematically more powerful than the VRS-4 in all simulations performed. The sensitivity of the VAS and NRS-11 was approximately equal. In this acute pain model, the VRS-4 was less sensitive than the VAS. The simulation results demonstrated similar sensitivity of the NRS-11 and VAS when comparing acute postoperative pain intensity. The choice between the VAS and NRS-11 can thus be based on subjective preferences.

The effect of analgesics on pathological pain in a double-blind, complete cross-over design was assessed by means of two rating scales, a verbal rating scale (VRS) and visual analogue scale (VAS). The VRS is widely used, but has several disadvantages as compared to the VAS. The results obtained by means of the VRS showed higher F-ratios (analysis of variance and Kruskall-Wallis H-test) than those obtained by means of the VAS. The VRS, which transfers a continuous feeling into a digital system, seems to augment artificially the measurement of effects produced by analgesics, and the VAS seems to assess more closely what a patient actually experiences with respect to change in pain intensities. The correlation between the two scales was highly significant (r = 0.81, P less than 0.001). The calculated regression line (y=-29.6 + 0.55-x) was not similar to the line of identity and showed much lower values for the VAS, supporting our interpretation. The distribution of the variances of the values obtained by means of both scales was not homogenous. This indicates that the homogeneity of the distribution of variances should always be checked and a Kruskall-Wallis H-test used, if they are inhomogenously distributed.