Observational studyScientific reports2026
Measuring pain in oral lichen planus: a comparative study of four assessment scales and their correlation.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Oral lichen planus is a chronic disease of the oral mucosa, with pain as one of its main symptoms. This study aimed to assess the correlation between the results of four pain intensity measures-including the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS)- in a population of patients diagnosed with oral lichen planus. In this prospective observational study, 66 patients with oral lichen planus participated. Four pain assessment scales were used, including VAS, NRS, VRS, and SF-MPQ. Participants completed these assessments at baseline and again after two weeks of treatment. A paired t-test, Spearman correlation, linear regression analysis, and adjusted multiple regression analysis (regarding age and level of education) were used to analyze the data. All four scales were sensitive to changes in pain after treatment and a significant reduction in pain scores was observed (p < 0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between all scales (p < 0.001). Regression analysis showed that scores on each scale could significantly predict scores on the other scales (p < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis adjusted for age and level of education, showed the correlations between the pain scales remained strong and significant (p < 0.001). These commonly used pain assessment scales showed strong correlation with each other, and it seems that the results obtained from each might be comparable with the others. However, further researches in larger studies and different populations are needed.
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.