Summary
Two 10 cm visual analogue scales were compared with a 0–10 point numerical rating scale and a four-point verbal descriptive scale, in assessing pain severity in twelve patients with post-operative pain following removal of an impacted lower third molar. High correlations were shown between the pain scores from the two visual analogue scales and the numerical scale, but a lower correlation was obtained when the four-point scale was compared with the other scales. Analgesic efficacy was found to be dependent on the type of scale used. The 10 cm visual analogue scale was more sensitive than other pain scales and could discriminate between small changes in pain intensity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wallenstein SL, Heidrich G, Kaiko R, Houde RW (1980) Clinical evaluation of mild anagesics: the measurement of clinical pain. Br J Clin Pharmacol 10: 319S-327S
Freyd M (1923) The graphic rating scale. J Educ Psychol 43: 83–102
Clarke PRF, Spear FG (1964) Reliability and sensitivity in the self assessment of well-being. Br Psychol Soc 17: 55
Aitken RCB (1969) Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. J R Soc Med 62: 989–993
Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MIJ (1976) The reliability of a linear analogue scale for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia 31: 1191–1198
Huskisson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet 1: 1127–1131
Berry M, Huskisson EC (1972) Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis — a trial of meprothixol. J Clin Trial 4: 13–14
Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA (1978) Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 37: 378–381
Ekowski C, Hrubes V, Joyce CRB, Zutshi DW, Floor MK, Mason RM (1972) An experimental study of two methodological problems in clinical evaluation: different types of scale and the availability of patients previous judgments. Psychopharmacologia 26 (Suppl): 70
Joyce CRB, Zutshi EW, Hrubes V, Mason RM (1975) Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 8: 514–520
Ohnhaus EE, Adler R (1975) Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain 1: 379–384
Scott J, Huskisson EC (1976) Graphic representation of pain. Pain 2: 175–184
Seymour RA, Rawlins MD (1982) Efficacy and pharmacokinetics of aspirin in post-operative dental pain. Br J Clin Pharmacol 13: 807–810
Cooper SA, Beaver WT (1976) A model to evaluate mild analgesics in oral surgery. Clin Pharmacol Therap 20: 241–250
von Graffenried B, Nuesch E, Maeglin B, Hagler W, Kuhn M (1980) Assessment of analgesics in dental surgery outpatients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 18: 479–482
Løkken P, Oslen I, Bruaset I, Norman-Pedersen K (1975) Bilateral surgical removal of impacted lower third molars as a model for drug evaluation: a test with ibuprofen. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 8: 209–216
Szmyd L, Shannon IL, Mohnac A (1965) Control of post-operative sequelae in impacted third molar surgery. J Oral Therap Pharmacol 1: 491–496
van Gool AV, ten Bosch JJ, Boering G (1977) Clinical consequences of complaints and complications after removal of the mandibular third molar. Int J Oral Surg 6: 29–37
Hepso HU, Løkken P, Bjornson J, Godal MC (1976) Doubleblind crossover study of the effect of acetylsalicylic acid on bleeding and post-operative course after bilateral oral surgery. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 10: 217–225
Kremer E, Hampton-Atkinson J, Ignelzi RJ (1981) Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain 10: 241–248
Hamilton M (1961) Lectures on the methodology of clinical research. Churchill Livingstone, London, pp 142
Aitken RCB, Zealley AK (1970) Measurement of moods. Br J Hosp Med 4: 215–224
Gracely RH (1979) Psychophysical assessment of human pain. In: Advances in pain research and therapy, Vol 3, pp 805–824
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seymour, R.A. The use of pain scales in assessing the efficacy of analgesics in post-operative dental pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 23, 441–444 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00605995
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00605995