ArticleBMC oral health2026
A comparative analysis of four pain rating scales in the assessment of acute oral and maxillofacial pain.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Amniotic membrane for oral surgical defect coverage: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious pain assessment scales, including the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and Wong-Baker Faces Scale (WBS), are commonly used, yet their comparative effectiveness in maxillofacial pain remains unclear.
aimThis study aims to compare four commonly used pain scales—VAS, NRS, VRS, and WBS—and evaluate their correlation and agreement in adult patients presenting with acute maxillofacial pain.
methodsThis prospective cross-sectional study included 197 adult patients who presented to the emergency department with acute maxillofacial pain and were subsequently referred to the maxillofacial surgery clinic. Pain intensity was assessed using all four scales in randomized sequence. Spearman correlation analysis was performed to evaluate relationships between scales, while Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess agreement. Patient preferences were analyzed based on age, sex, and educational level.
resultsAll four pain scales demonstrated strong correlations, with the highest correlation between NRS and VRS and the lowest between VAS and WBS. Bland-Altman analysis revealed the strongest agreement between VAS and NRS, while the weakest agreement was observed between VAS and WBS. NRS emerged as the most reliable and preferred scale, especially among younger and highly educated patients. WBS was preferred by older adults and those with lower education levels.
conclusionWhile NRS appears to be the most reliable and broadly applicable assessment scale, VAS and VRS can serve as alternatives for patients with strong numerical or verbal comprehension skills. WBS remains valuable for elderly or less-educated populations due to its intuitive visual representation.
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.