A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKarcıoğlu, Özgür
dc.contributor.authorTopaçoğlu, Hakan
dc.contributor.authorDikme, Özgür
dc.contributor.authorDikme, Özlem
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-30T22:38:54Z
dc.date.available2020-04-30T22:38:54Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.departmentDÜ, Tıp Fakültesi, Dahili Tıp Bilimleri Bölümüen_US
dc.descriptionDikme, Ozgur/0000-0001-6221-7932; Dikme, Ozlem/0000-0002-9739-3925en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000431713500034en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 29321111en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: The study analysed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to determine: 1. Were the compliance and usability different among scales? 2. Were any of the scales superior over the other(s) for clinical use? Methods: A systematic review of currently published studies was performed following standard guidelines. Online database searches were performed for clinical trials published before November 2017, on the comparison of the pain scores in adults and preferences of the specific patient groups. A literature search via electronic databases was carried out for the last fifteen years on English Language papers. The search terms initially included pain rating scales, pain measurement, pain intensity, VAS, VRS, and NRS. Papers were examined for methodological soundness before being included. Data were independently extracted by two blinded reviewers. Studies were also assessed for bias using the Cochrane criteria. Results: The initial data search yielded 872 potentially relevant studies; of these, 853 were excluded for some reason. The main reason for exclusion (33.7%) was that irrelevance to comparison of pain scales and scores, followed by pediatric studies (32.1%). Finally, 19 underwent full-text review, and were analysed for the study purposes. Studies were of moderate (n = 12, 63%) to low (n = 7, 37%) quality. Conclusions: All three scales are valid, reliable and appropriate for use in clinical practice, although the VAS is more difficulties than the others. For general purposes the NRS has good sensitivity and generates data that can be analysed for audit purposes. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.008
dc.identifier.endpage714en_US
dc.identifier.issn0735-6757
dc.identifier.issn1532-8171
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage707en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.008
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/2512
dc.identifier.volume36en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000431713500034en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherW B Saunders Co-Elsevier Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal Of Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAcute painen_US
dc.subjectPain scoreen_US
dc.subjectPain scaleen_US
dc.subjectPain intensityen_US
dc.subjectPain managementen_US
dc.subjectEmergency departmenten_US
dc.titleA systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use?en_US
dc.typeReview Articleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Diğer Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu