Labronici PJ, dos Santos-Viana AM, dos Santos-Filho FC, Santos-Pires RE, Labronici GJ, Penteado-da Silva LH

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 73-80
PDF size: 213.12 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the information obtained of the percentage of improvement declared orally with the improvement marked in the visual analogical scale (VAS) in patients under and over 65 years of age. Patients and methods: Ninety-five individuals with acute shoulder pain (enthesitis) were evaluated. The subjects were requested to mark the pain intensity in the VAS before a treatment with corticosteroid injection in the shoulder and were evaluated again through the VAS one week after the procedure. They were also requested to declare orally the pain intensity. Then, the information was compared between patients aged under and over 65 years of age. Results: 29.8% of those younger than 65 years, and 60.95% of those older than that age presented more than 10% difference between orally stated and calculated pain relief percentage based on the VSA. Conclusion: The difference between the orally stated and the calculated pain relief percentage based on the VSA was significantly higher in the group of those older than 65 years. This finding proved that the VAS is a poor method to evaluate pain relief in the senior population.

REFERENCES

1. Gagliese L, Katz J: Age differences in postoperative pain are scale dependent: a comparison of measures of pain intensity and quality in younger and older surgical patients. Pain. 2003; 103: 11-20.

2. Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW: What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? J Injury. 2011; 42(3): 236-40.

3. MacKenzie EJ, Shapiro S, Smith RT, et al: Factors influencing return to work following hospitalization for traumatic injury. Am J Public Health. 1987; 77: 329-34.

4. MacKenzie EJ, Siegel JH, Shapiro S, Moody M, Smith RT: Functional recovery and medical costs of trauma: an analysis by type and severity of injury. J Trauma. 1988; 28: 281-97.

5. Meerding WJ, Looman CW, Essink-Bot ML, Toet H, Mulder S, van Beeck EF: Distribution and determinants of health and work status in a comprehensive population of injury patients. J Trauma. 2004; 56: 150-61.

6. Ottosson C, Nyren O, Johansson SE, Ponzer S: Outcome after minor traffic accidents: a follow-up study of orthopedic patients in an inner-city area emergency room. J Trauma. 2005; 58: 553-60.

7. Glancy KE, Glancy CJ, Lucke JF, Mahurin K, Rhodes M, Tinkoff GH: A study of recovery in trauma patients. J Trauma. 1992; 33: 602-9.

8. Hetherington H, Earlam RJ: Beyond the scalpel. Measurement of disability after multiple injuries: The functional independence measure. Eur J Surg. 1995; 161: 549.

9. Gagliese L, Weizblit N, Ellis W, Chan VW: The measurement of postoperative pain: A comparison of intensity scales in younger and older surgical patients. Pain. 2005; 117: 412-20.

10. Gagliese L: Assessment of pain in the elderly. In: Turk DC, Melzack R, editors. Handbook of pain assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2001: 119-33.

11. Downie WW, Leatman PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA: Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978; 37: 378-81.

12. Svensson E: Ordinal invariant measures for individual and group changes in ordered categorical data. Stat Med. 1998; 17: 2923-36.

13. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R: Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1975; 1: 379-84.

14. Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990; 13: 227-36.