Studies were of moderate (n=12, 63%) to low (n=7, 37%) quality.Īll three scales are valid, reliable and appropriate for use in clinical practice, although the VAS is more difficulties than the others. Finally, 19 underwent full-text review, and were analysed for the study purposes. The main reason for exclusion (33.7%) was that irrelevance to comparison of pain scales and scores, followed by pediatric studies (32.1%). The initial data search yielded 872 potentially relevant studies of these, 853 were excluded for some reason. Studies were also assessed for bias using the Cochrane criteria. Data were independently extracted by two blinded reviewers. ![]() Papers were examined for methodological soundness before being included. The search terms initially included pain rating scales, pain measurement, pain intensity, VAS, VRS, and NRS. ![]() A literature search via electronic databases was carried out for the last fifteen years on English Language papers. ![]() ![]() 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. Were any of the scales superior over the other(s) for clinical use?Ī systematic review of currently published studies was performed following standard guidelines. Were the compliance and usability different among scales? 2. The study analysed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to determine: 1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |