ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2016
Validation of a New "Objective Pain Score" Vs. "Numeric Rating Scale" For the Evaluation of Acute Pain: A Comparative Study.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Utility of unidimensional and functional pain assessment tools in adult postoperative patients: a systematic review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2022Pooled it
- Acute effects of aerobic versus combined aerobic and cervical-upper extremity resistance exercise on pressure pain threshold, pain perception, and fatigue in workers exposed to high ergonomic risk with chronic non-specific neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Treatment of Scapholunate Ligament Tear: The First Long-term Follow-up of an Innovative Surgical Technique.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Exercise Participation and Clinical Characteristics of Desk-Based Workers with Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain Exposed to Increased Ergonomic Risk: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Article
- Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Cauterization Under Local Anesthesia for Posterior Epistaxis: A Prospective Cohort Study of its Tolerability and Efficacy.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- Real-Life Effects of Omalizumab on Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Targeting IL-4 and IL-13 Receptors on Eosinophils in CRSwNP Patients: The Clinical Efficacy of Dupilumab.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical correlation of salivary alpha-amylase levels with pain intensity in patients undergoing emergency endodontic treatment.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- A Predictive Model for Avoiding Follow-Up Paracentesis in Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Experimental Exploration of Objective Human Pain Assessment Using Multimodal Sensing Signals.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Effect of Ketamine, Ketamine-Midazolam and Ketamine-Propofol on Post-Tonsillectomy Agitation in Children.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2021Article
- Article
- Influence of interpretation of pain scores on patients' perception of pain: A prospective study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
- A retrospective study on analgesic requirements for thoracoscopic surgery postoperative pain.Journal of pain research · 2017Article
- Validation of a New "Objective Pain Score" vs. "Numeric Rating Scale" For the Evaluation of Acute Pain: A Comparative Study.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2016Article
- Efficacy of Adding a Distal Level Block to a C2 Level Greater Occipital Nerve Block under Ultrasound Guidance in Chronic Migraine.Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyArticle
- The Relationship Between Salivary Alpha Amylase Activity and Score of McGill Pain Questionnaire in Patients With Tension Type Headache.Basic and clinical neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain scores are used for acute pain management. The assessment of pain by the patient as well as the caregiver can be influenced by a variety of factors. The numeric rating scale (NRS) is widely used due to its easy application. The NRS requires abstract thinking by a patient to assign a score to correctly reflect analgesic needs, and its interpretation is subject to bias.
objectivesThe study was done to validate a 4-point objective pain score (OPS) for the evaluation of acute postoperative pain and its comparison with the NRS. PATIENT AND
methodsA total of 1021 paired readings of the OPS and NRS of 93 patients who underwent laparotomy and used patient-controlled analgesia were evaluated. Acute pain service (APS) personnel recorded the OPS and NRS. Rescue analgesia was divided into two incremental levels (level 1-paracetamol 1 g for NRS 2 - 5 and OPS 3, Level 2-Fentanyl 25 mcg for NRS ≥ 6 and OPS 1 and 2). In cases of disagreement between the two scores, an independent consultant decided the rescue analgesia.
resultsThe NRS and OPS agreed across the range of pain. There were 25 disagreements in 8 patients. On 24 occasions, rescue analgesia was increased from level 1 to 2, and one occasion it was decreased from level 2 to 1. On all 25 occasions, the decision to supplement analgesia went in favor of the OPS over the NRS. Besides these 25 disagreements, there were 17 occasions in which observer bias was possible for level 2 rescue analgesia.
conclusionsThe OPS is a good stand-alone pain score and is better than the NRS for defining mild and moderate pain. It may even be used to supplement NRS when it is indicative of mild or moderate pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.