Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Pain scale

A pain scale is a standardized tool employed in medical practice to quantify the subjective experience of pain, enabling healthcare providers to assess its intensity, guide treatment decisions, and evaluate therapeutic outcomes through patient self-reporting or behavioral observation.^[1] These scales emerged prominently in the mid-20th century amid growing recognition of pain as a vital clinical concern, with significant proliferation since the 1970s to address diverse patient populations including adults, children, and those unable to verbalize discomfort.^[2] Pain scales are broadly categorized into unidimensional tools, which focus solely on pain intensity, and multidimensional instruments that also capture its quality, location, and impact on daily functioning.^[3] Common unidimensional examples include the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), where patients mark a point on a 10-cm line ranging from "no pain" to "worst possible pain," and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), which asks individuals to rate their pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain); both are widely used and generally reliable for verbal adults.^[1] For pediatric or nonverbal patients, scales like the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale use illustrated facial expressions from smiling (0) to grimacing (10) to facilitate communication, while observational tools such as the FLACC scale (measuring face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability) aid in assessing infants or sedated individuals.^[1] Multidimensional scales, including the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) with its sensory, affective, and evaluative word descriptors, and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) that evaluates severity alongside interference in activities, provide deeper insights into chronic or complex pain but are more time-intensive.^[3] Despite their utility in promoting systematic pain management—often integrated as the "fifth vital sign" in 1996—these scales face criticisms for oversimplifying a multifaceted sensory and emotional phenomenon, potentially leading to over-reliance on numerical values without considering individual variability or cultural differences.^[4]^[5] Validity, reliability, and ease of use remain key criteria for selecting scales, with ongoing research emphasizing the need for tailored approaches across clinical contexts to enhance accuracy and patient-centered care.^[6]

Fundamentals of Pain

Definition and Physiology of Pain

Pain is defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.^[7] This definition, established by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), underscores pain's subjective nature, which arises from complex interactions among biological, psychological, and social factors, as outlined in the biopsychosocial model.^[8] In this model, biological processes like nociception initiate the pain pathway, while psychological elements such as emotions and cognition modulate perception, and social influences like cultural expectations shape the overall experience.^[9] Nociception begins with the detection of noxious stimuli—thermal, mechanical, or chemical—by specialized peripheral nociceptors in tissues such as skin, muscles, and viscera.^[9] These stimuli are transduced into electrical signals and transmitted via primary afferent neurons to the spinal cord. Myelinated A-delta fibers carry sharp, localized "fast" pain signals, responding quickly to high-threshold mechanical or thermal inputs, while unmyelinated C-fibers convey dull, diffuse "slow" pain, activated by polymodal stimuli including inflammation.^[9] Upon reaching the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, these signals synapse with second-order neurons, which project to the brain via the spinothalamic tract.^[9] Pain modulation occurs at multiple levels to regulate signal intensity. In the spinal cord, local interneurons and descending pathways from brainstem structures like the periaqueductal gray and rostral ventral medulla can inhibit or facilitate transmission through mechanisms such as the gate control theory, where non-noxious input from A-beta fibers closes the "gate" to pain signals.^[9] In the brain, integration in areas including the thalamus, somatosensory cortex, insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and amygdala processes sensory-discriminative, affective-motivational, and cognitive-evaluative aspects of pain.^[9] Key neurotransmitters play pivotal roles: substance P, released from C-fiber terminals, enhances excitatory transmission by binding to neurokinin-1 receptors on dorsal horn neurons, promoting pain sensitization.^[10] Conversely, endorphins, endogenous opioids derived from proopiomelanocortin, bind to mu-opioid receptors to inhibit pain signaling by suppressing substance P release in the periphery and modulating inhibitory interneurons in the central nervous system.^[11] Acute pain serves a protective biological function, signaling immediate tissue damage or threat to prompt avoidance behaviors and typically resolves with healing, often within days to weeks.^[12] In contrast, chronic pain persists beyond the expected healing period—usually longer than three months—and is considered pathological, lacking adaptive value and often arising from maladaptive neuroplastic changes like central sensitization rather than ongoing injury.^[12] This distinction highlights how unresolved acute pain can transition to chronic states through persistent nociceptive input or altered processing.^[12] Several key phenomena illustrate pain's complexity. Allodynia refers to pain elicited by non-noxious stimuli, such as light touch, due to sensitized nociceptors or central amplification.^[7] Hyperalgesia involves exaggerated pain responses to normally painful stimuli, often from peripheral or central sensitization enhancing signal transmission.^[7] Referred pain occurs when nociceptive input from one site is perceived at a distant location, mediated by convergent projections in the spinal cord to shared brain regions.^[7] These concepts emphasize pain's multidimensional physiology, where its inherent subjectivity requires reliable assessment tools for effective clinical management.^[9]

Importance of Measuring Pain

Measuring pain is essential in clinical practice because it directly informs treatment decisions, such as the selection of pharmacological interventions like opioids or non-pharmacological approaches like physical therapy, ensuring that therapies are tailored to the patient's reported intensity and functional impact.^[1] For instance, guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emphasize assessing pain severity and function to guide safer opioid prescribing, reducing risks of overuse while addressing acute or chronic needs.^[13] This systematic evaluation helps clinicians adjust dosages or switch modalities promptly, preventing escalation of pain that could complicate recovery.^[14] Accurate pain measurement significantly enhances patient outcomes by promoting better satisfaction and alleviating suffering, as validated assessments correlate with reduced adverse effects like prolonged hospital stays or chronic pain development.^[15] Studies show that regular pain evaluations lead to more effective management plans, resulting in higher patient-reported satisfaction scores and improved quality of life metrics.^[1] By recognizing pain's subjective nature amid its physiological complexity, healthcare providers can mitigate unnecessary distress, fostering trust and adherence to care protocols.^[16] In research, pain scales serve as standardized tools for evaluating therapeutic efficacy in clinical trials and tracking trends in epidemiological studies, enabling quantifiable comparisons across populations and interventions.^[17] For example, they allow researchers to monitor changes in pain intensity over time, establishing benchmarks for treatment success such as a 30% reduction in scores for moderate improvement.^[18] This data supports evidence-based advancements in pain management strategies.^[19] Ethically, measuring pain upholds patient autonomy and dignity by treating it as a critical indicator—often termed the "fifth vital sign" in clinical guidelines—ensuring that unrelieved suffering is not overlooked, which could otherwise increase vulnerability.^[5] Failing to assess pain adequately raises moral concerns, as it may lead to undertreatment and ethical breaches in care obligations, particularly for vulnerable groups.^[20] This practice aligns with professional standards that prioritize humane relief of distress as a fundamental right.^[21]

Historical Development

Early Concepts and Methods

In ancient civilizations, pain was frequently understood through supernatural and humoral frameworks rather than systematic assessment. Mesopotamian and Egyptian views attributed pain to divine omens, demonic influences, or punishments from gods, with treatments involving rituals and incantations to appease deities like Horus.^[22] Greek philosophers and physicians, such as Hippocrates around 400 BCE, shifted toward naturalistic explanations, positing pain as a result of imbalances among the four humors—blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile—with the brain serving as the central organ for sensation.^[22] Galen (129–216 CE), building on Hippocratic ideas, integrated humoral theory with emerging knowledge of anatomy, describing pain as a disruption of bodily continuity and an "alarm signal" transmitted via the nervous system, distinguishing between central and peripheral components.^[22] During the medieval period, religious interpretations dominated pain concepts, particularly in Christian Europe, where suffering was seen as divine punishment for sin or a redemptive path through martyrdom, influencing both theological and rudimentary medical approaches to endurance.^[22] Islamic scholars like Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980–1037 CE) advanced Galen's humoral framework in his Canon of Medicine, viewing pain not as a disease but as a symptom signaling underlying imbalance, and classifying it into 15 distinct types based on location and quality to guide diagnosis and treatment.^[22] These ideas emphasized qualitative observation of symptoms over measurement, with physicians relying on patient descriptions and visible signs like grimacing or withdrawal to infer pain's presence and severity.^[22] The 19th century brought physiological advancements that began clarifying pain's neural basis, though assessment remained largely observational. Charles Bell in 1811 and François Magendie in 1822 established the Bell-Magendie law, demonstrating that dorsal spinal roots transmit sensory signals, including pain, while ventral roots handle motor functions, thus delineating key pathways for nociceptive information from periphery to central nervous system.^[22] This supported the specificity theory of pain, proposed by Bell and later refined by Moritz Schiff, which posited dedicated neural fibers for painful sensations separate from other tactile inputs.^[22] In clinical practice during the late 1800s, pain evaluation depended on qualitative methods such as physician observations of behavioral cues—groaning, facial expressions, or resistance—and patient narratives, often biased by cultural stereotypes regarding gender, race, and class, with no standardized tools available.^[23] Key progress in understanding pain responses came from Charles Sherrington's 1906 work, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, which detailed reflex arcs as the basic units of nervous coordination, including nociceptive reflexes like the flexion reflex—a protective withdrawal triggered by painful stimuli such as pricking or heat.^[24] Sherrington's experiments on spinal animals revealed that pain impulses enter the spinal cord via afferent nerves, propagate primarily through crossed lateral columns, and elicit coordinated responses involving excitation of flexors and inhibition of extensors, highlighting the reflex's prepotency over other actions for survival.^[24] These findings emphasized the spinal cord's role in integrating sensory inputs without higher brain involvement, providing a mechanistic foundation for later pain studies. These rudimentary concepts and methods paved the way for quantitative assessment tools in the mid-20th century.^[25]

Modern Evolution and Standardization

The mid-20th century marked a shift toward more structured and quantitative approaches to pain assessment, building on earlier qualitative methods. In the 1940s, researchers like Hardy, Wolff, and Goodell advanced pain measurement by developing techniques to quantify pain thresholds, providing a foundation for subsequent scales.^[26] By the 1960s, the visual analog scale (VAS) emerged as a key innovation, initially introduced by Bond and Pilowsky in 1966 as a continuous line for rating subjective experiences, though its application to pain gained prominence later.^[26] Concurrently, the McGill Pain Questionnaire was developed by Ronald Melzack in 1975, offering a multidimensional tool that categorized pain descriptors into sensory, affective, and evaluative dimensions to capture its qualitative aspects more comprehensively.^[27] The 1970s and 1980s saw significant efforts toward standardization, driven by the establishment of key organizations. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) was founded in 1973 to promote research and education on pain, playing a pivotal role in classifying and standardizing pain assessment methods globally during this period.^[28] IASP's initiatives facilitated the widespread adoption of tools like the VAS, which Edward Huskisson further refined and advocated for in his 1974 Lancet article, emphasizing its sensitivity for measuring pain intensity over traditional categorical scales.90884-8/fulltext) These developments proliferated pain scales tailored to clinical and research needs, shifting from ad hoc evaluations to validated, reproducible instruments. From the 1990s onward, integration into broader guidelines accelerated standardization and routine use. The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced its analgesic ladder in 1986, a three-step framework for cancer pain management that incorporated systematic pain assessment to guide escalating treatments from non-opioids to opioids, influencing global protocols.^[29] By the 2000s, bodies like the [Joint Commission](/page/Joint Commission) on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) mandated quantitative pain screening, such as the 0-10 numeric rating scale, in U.S. hospitals starting in 2001, embedding these tools into standard care.^[30] The opioid crisis, escalating in the late 1990s and continuing to intensify through the 2020s, prompted refinements to enhance accuracy and mitigate misuse; for instance, JCAHO revised its standards in 2017 to emphasize multimodal assessments, risk evaluation for opioids, and functional outcomes over sole reliance on intensity scores, aiming to balance relief with safety.^[30]

Unidimensional Pain Scales

Numeric Rating Scale

The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is a unidimensional, self-reported tool designed to quantify pain intensity using a simple integer-based system. Patients are instructed to rate their current pain level on an 11-point scale ranging from 0, indicating no pain, to 10, representing the worst imaginable pain, with clear verbal anchors provided at each end to ensure understanding.^[1] This discrete numerical format allows for straightforward communication of pain severity in clinical environments. Administration of the NRS is flexible and patient-centered, typically involving verbal questioning by a healthcare provider or written instructions where the patient selects or circles a number on a provided scale. It is suitable for individuals aged 8 years and older, as younger children may struggle with abstract numerical concepts.^[31] The process takes less than a minute, making it ideal for busy settings like emergency departments or routine follow-ups, and it can be repeated frequently to track changes in pain over time.00014-5/fulltext) Scoring on the NRS is direct, with the patient's selected number serving as the raw score. Interpretation categorizes pain as mild for scores of 1-3, moderate for 4-6, and severe for 7-10, guiding clinical decisions such as analgesic dosing or intervention thresholds.^[32] These cutoffs are widely adopted in practice to standardize pain management across diverse patient populations.^[33] The NRS offers several advantages, including its brevity and ease of use, which enhance patient compliance compared to more complex tools. Studies demonstrate high reliability, with test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients often exceeding 0.90, and strong convergent validity evidenced by correlations with the Visual Analog Scale greater than 0.8.^[34]^[35] In comparisons with other unidimensional scales, the NRS shows superior usability for verbal administration, particularly in patients who find continuous scales challenging.00014-5/fulltext)

Verbal Rating Scale

The Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) is a unidimensional tool for assessing pain intensity through a set of descriptive word categories, offering a simple alternative to numerical or visual methods that is especially accessible for patients with low literacy or cognitive impairments. By relying on familiar language rather than numbers or markings, it facilitates quick self-reporting in diverse clinical settings, including those involving elderly or non-native speakers. This categorical approach prioritizes ease of understanding over precise measurement, enabling broader applicability in routine pain evaluations. Common versions of the VRS include a 4-point scale featuring descriptors such as "none," "mild," "moderate," and "severe," which captures basic pain gradations without overwhelming the patient. A 5-point variant extends this by incorporating an additional category like "unbearable" or "very severe," providing slightly more nuance while maintaining simplicity. These configurations are widely adopted due to their brevity and alignment with everyday pain language. Administration typically occurs via a clinician-led interview where the patient verbally selects the descriptor that most accurately reflects their pain experience, often reading from a predefined list to ensure consistency. This interactive process takes minimal time and can be adapted for telephone or bedside use, though it requires clear communication to avoid misinterpretation of terms. Scoring treats the selected category as an ordinal value, with "none" assigned the lowest intensity (e.g., 0) and escalating to the highest (e.g., 4 for severe), allowing for basic comparisons over time or between patients. However, the subjective spacing between categories can complicate quantitative analysis, as perceived differences may not be uniform. Evidence supports the VRS's high inter-rater reliability in elderly populations, particularly in postoperative settings like hip fractures, where paired assessments at rest yielded a linear weighted kappa of 0.75, indicating strong agreement between repeated measures. In nursing home residents with cognitive impairment, the VRS achieved completion rates of up to 80.5% overall and 36% among those with severe impairment, outperforming other scales in feasibility. Despite these strengths, studies highlight limitations in granularity, with the VRS showing moderate responsiveness (standardized response mean of 0.52–0.58) compared to the Numeric Rating Scale's higher sensitivity (0.89) for detecting pain changes in chronic conditions, potentially underestimating subtle improvements.

Visual Analog Scale

The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a unidimensional tool designed to measure pain intensity as a continuous variable, consisting of a straight line, typically 100 mm in length, with endpoints anchored by descriptors such as "no pain" at the left (0) and "worst possible pain" or "pain as bad as it could be" at the right (100). Patients indicate their current pain level by marking a point along this line, allowing for fine-grained assessment without predefined categories. This design, originally described for pain measurement by Huskisson in 1974, facilitates subjective reporting while minimizing bias from verbal or numerical constraints.^[36] Administration of the VAS can occur via traditional paper formats, where patients use a pen to mark the line, or through electronic versions on devices like laptops or smartphones, where users click or tap to select a position, often convertible to a percentage scale. Mechanical variants, such as sliding markers on a fixed line, have also been employed historically for precision. The scale is measured post-administration by calculating the distance in millimeters from the "no pain" anchor to the patient's mark, yielding a score from 0 to 100; electronic systems automate this process for efficiency. These methods ensure versatility across clinical settings, though paper remains common for its simplicity.^[37]^[38] Psychometric evaluation confirms the VAS's strong properties for pain assessment, including high test-retest reliability (correlation coefficients of 0.71–0.94) and convergent validity with other scales (r = 0.62–0.91). It exhibits notable sensitivity to changes in pain intensity, with a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 10–13 mm established in postoperative contexts, indicating its utility in detecting meaningful improvements or deteriorations. Systematic reviews further validate its responsiveness, with standardized response means often exceeding 1.0 in acute pain scenarios, supporting its widespread adoption in clinical trials and practice.^[36]^[39]

Multidimensional and Specialized Pain Scales

Multidimensional Questionnaires

Multidimensional questionnaires extend pain assessment beyond simple intensity ratings by evaluating multiple dimensions such as sensory qualities, emotional impact, and functional interference, providing a more comprehensive profile of the pain experience.^[27] These tools are particularly valuable in clinical and research settings for distinguishing pain types and tailoring interventions, as they capture subjective aspects that unidimensional scales overlook.^[40] The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), developed in 1975, is a seminal multidimensional tool consisting of 78 pain descriptors grouped into 20 categories, classified into sensory (42 words describing temporal, spatial, pressure, and thermal qualities), affective (14 words capturing emotional responses like fear or exhaustion), evaluative (2 words for overall intensity), and miscellaneous (20 words for additional qualities) subclasses.^[27] The Pain Rating Index (PRI) is calculated by summing the number of words chosen from each subclass or the total across all, yielding scores that quantify multidimensional pain characteristics; a present pain intensity scale and visual analog scale are also included for supplementary intensity measures.^[27] Factor analysis of MPQ responses has validated its structure, confirming distinct sensory, affective, and evaluative dimensions that correlate with physiological and psychological pain mechanisms, enhancing its reliability across diverse pain conditions.^[41] The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), introduced in the early 1990s, assesses pain severity through four items (worst, least, average pain, and current pain, rated 0-10) while emphasizing functional impact via seven interference subscales covering general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relationships, sleep, and enjoyment of life, each scored from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes).^[40] The interference score, derived as the mean of these subscales, highlights how pain disrupts daily functioning, making the BPI suitable for tracking treatment outcomes in both acute and chronic scenarios.^[40] Other examples include the Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS), which differentiates neuropathic pain qualities through 10 items rating sensations like intense, sharp, hot, dull, cold, sensitive, itchy, and unpleasant on a 0-10 scale, allowing for targeted assessment of nerve-related pain descriptors.^[42] These questionnaires, such as the MPQ, have been widely adopted in research to identify pain phenotypes, enabling classification of patients into subgroups based on sensory-affective profiles for more precise therapeutic studies.^[43]

Scales for Specific Populations and Conditions

Pain scales must be tailored to specific populations and conditions to account for variations in communication abilities, cognitive function, and symptom profiles. In pediatric settings, self-report tools like the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) enable children aged 4 years and older to indicate pain intensity by selecting from six facial expressions representing increasing levels of discomfort, scored on a 0-10 metric where 0 denotes no pain and 10 the worst possible pain.^[44] Developed by adapting earlier faces scales, the FPS-R facilitates reliable self-assessment in acute and procedural pain contexts, with validation studies confirming strong correlations to other measures like the Visual Analog Scale (r = 0.92).^[44] For nonverbal infants and young children unable to self-report, typically from 2 months to 7 years, the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale employs behavioral observation across five domains—facial expression, leg movement, body activity, crying quality, and consolability—each rated 0-2 for a total score of 0-10. This tool, originally validated in postoperative settings, supports objective pain evaluation through caregiver or clinician observations over 1-5 minutes. The FPS-R exhibits high reliability in pediatric populations, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) often exceeding 0.9 for test-retest assessments in conditions like sickle cell crises, underscoring its consistency across repeated measures.^[45] However, cultural adaptations pose challenges for global use, as facial expressions of pain may vary across ethnic groups, potentially limiting the scale's universality without localized validation to ensure cross-cultural validity.^[46] Among older adults with cognitive impairments, such as advanced dementia, the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) scale addresses communication barriers by observing five behavioral indicators: breathing patterns, negative vocalizations, facial expressions, body language, and consolability, each scored 0-2 for a total of 0-10.^[47] Adapted from tools like the FLACC and Discomfort Scale-Dementia of the Alzheimer Type, PAINAD was developed for noncommunicative patients and validated through comparisons with visual analog scales, showing satisfactory internal consistency (alpha = 0.50-0.67) and interrater reliability (ICC = 0.84-0.96).^[47] Scores of 1-3 indicate mild pain, 4-6 moderate, and 7-10 severe, guiding analgesic interventions in long-term care. For disease-specific applications, the Biberoglu and Behrman (B&B) scale assesses endometriosis symptom severity by rating key pains—dysmenorrhea (menstrual pain), deep dyspareunia (painful intercourse), and nonmenstrual pelvic pain—on a 0-3 ordinal scale (0 = none, 3 = severe), alongside physical exam findings like tenderness.^[48] This composite scoring integrates patient-reported symptoms to quantify overall burden, with higher totals reflecting greater disease impact, and has been widely adopted in clinical trials to evaluate treatment efficacy despite its subjective elements.^[49]

Clinical Applications

Use in Acute Pain Management

In emergency departments, pain scales such as the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) are integrated into protocols for initial triage and ongoing management of acute pain from injuries or medical emergencies. Serial NRS assessments, typically conducted at triage and repeated during treatment, allow clinicians to quantify pain intensity and titrate analgesics like opioids or non-opioids accordingly, ensuring timely dose adjustments to achieve adequate relief without over-sedation.^[50] This approach supports systematic analgesia delivery in high-volume settings.^[51] In postoperative settings, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) serves as a key tool for monitoring acute pain trajectories following surgery, with assessments performed at regular intervals post-recovery to track declines in intensity as patients recover. VAS scores help identify persistent pain hotspots, guiding multimodal interventions like patient-controlled analgesia or regional blocks to facilitate earlier ambulation and rehabilitation.^[52] Longitudinal VAS tracking has been associated with recovery milestones, including reduced complications from inadequate pain control.^[53] Hospital accreditation standards from The Joint Commission emphasize routine pain screening and assessment as integral to acute care quality, requiring hospitals to implement evidence-based protocols for identifying, evaluating, and reassessing pain in real-time to support safe management.^[54] These standards promote consistent use of validated scales across inpatient units, including emergency and surgical areas, to minimize variability in care delivery.^[55] Scale-guided interventions in acute pain management have demonstrated tangible benefits, including shortened hospital lengths of stay through optimized analgesia that accelerates functional recovery and discharge readiness. For instance, structured pain assessment programs in intensive care units have reduced average hospitalization durations by promoting effective control and preventing prolonged bed rest.^[56] Such outcomes underscore the role of pain scales in enhancing efficiency without compromising safety.^[57] Emerging applications include AI-assisted tools for real-time pain detection, improving accuracy in dynamic clinical environments as of 2025.^[58]

Use in Chronic and Specific Diseases

In chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia, the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is widely employed to assess not only pain intensity but also its interference with daily activities, providing clinicians with insights into functional impacts that guide tailored interventions.^[59] For instance, the BPI's interference subscale evaluates how pain affects mood, sleep, and mobility, which has been validated for reliability in fibromyalgia patients, enabling adjustments in therapies like physical rehabilitation or pharmacological management.^[60] Similarly, in arthritis, particularly osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, the BPI short form demonstrates strong psychometric properties for measuring pain severity and interference, supporting its use in monitoring treatment responses and improving patient outcomes over time.^[61]^[62] For endometriosis, pain assessment often integrates unidimensional scales for dysmenorrhea—such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) or Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)—with multidimensional quality-of-life measures to capture the broader burden of chronic pelvic pain. The VAS, frequently applied to rate menstrual pain intensity, correlates with diminished health-related quality of life when scores exceed 7 cm, prompting combined evaluations using tools like the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) to address both symptom severity and psychosocial effects.^[63]^[49] This approach allows for holistic management, where dysmenorrhea scales inform surgical or hormonal therapies alongside quality-of-life assessments that track improvements in emotional well-being and daily functioning.^[64] In cancer-related chronic pain, particularly within palliative care settings, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) offers a comprehensive framework for evaluating pain alongside other symptoms like fatigue and anxiety, facilitating integrated symptom control.^[65] ESAS's numerical rating of pain intensity (0-10) enables rapid bedside assessments, with validated revisions supporting its reliability in oncology populations for guiding opioid titration and supportive care adjustments.^[66] This holistic tool has been instrumental in palliative protocols, where serial ESAS scores help monitor pain trajectories and correlate with enhanced patient comfort during disease progression.^[67] Longitudinally, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) is utilized to track pain flares in chronic conditions by quantifying sensory, affective, and evaluative dimensions, allowing for dynamic therapy modifications based on evolving pain profiles.^[68] Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that adjustments in interventions, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy or integrated pain management programs informed by multidimensional scales like the MPQ, yield quality-of-life improvements on standardized measures like the Short Form-36, by reducing flare frequency and enhancing functional status.^[69]^[18]

Limitations and Future Directions

Validity, Reliability, and Criticisms

Pain scales, such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), demonstrate varying degrees of construct validity, which assesses how well they measure the intended underlying concept of pain intensity in alignment with physiological and clinical indicators. Studies have shown adequate construct validity for these unidimensional scales, particularly when correlated with other pain measures or physiological responses like nociceptive thresholds. For instance, in a university-based study of Spanish-speaking adults, all four common pain intensity scales (NRS, VAS, VRS, and Faces Pain Scale-Revised) exhibited strong construct validity.^[70] Similarly, among Thai patients with chronic pain, the 0–10 NRS showed the highest utility and construct validity compared to other scales, aligning well with self-reported pain experiences.^[71] However, construct validity can be limited in multidimensional contexts, where unidimensional scales fail to capture affective or cognitive components of pain beyond intensity. Reliability, particularly test-retest reliability, is a key strength of these scales, indicating consistency in scores over short intervals without clinical change. The VAS has demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) often exceeding 0.9 in populations with osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain. For example, in a study of patients with knee osteoarthritis, the VAS achieved an ICC of 0.97, outperforming the NRS and VRS in measurement stability.^[72] NRS and VRS also show good reliability, with ICCs typically in the 0.7–0.9 range, though errors may increase in acute settings or with cognitive impairments. Overall, these reliability metrics support the scales' use in clinical monitoring, but they underscore the need for repeated assessments to account for minor fluctuations. Criticisms of pain scales center on their inherent subjectivity, which can lead to inconsistent reporting influenced by cultural norms, such as underreporting in stoic societies where expressing pain is stigmatized. This subjectivity introduces measurement errors, as patients' interpretations of scale anchors (e.g., "no pain" to "worst pain") vary based on personal, linguistic, and sociocultural factors, potentially skewing clinical decisions. Additionally, the NRS exhibits ceiling effects for extreme pain, where scores cluster at the maximum (10/10), limiting its ability to differentiate severe intensities and hindering precise tracking in critical care scenarios. Biases in pain scale scoring further undermine their robustness, with notable gender and racial disparities. Women consistently report higher pain intensities than men across various conditions, often by 1–2 points on the NRS or VAS, as evidenced in analyses of over 11,000 electronic medical records spanning multiple diagnoses.^[73] This difference persists even after controlling for diagnosis, suggesting biological, psychological, or reporting style influences. Racial disparities are equally pronounced; Black patients receive lower pain assessments and treatments compared to White patients for equivalent conditions, driven by provider biases rooted in false beliefs about biological differences in pain tolerance. For instance, medical trainees and professionals often underestimate Black patients' pain, leading to systematic undertreatment in emergency and primary care settings. The validation of digital adaptations of pain scales remains incompletely covered in the literature, particularly post-2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, where remote assessments proliferated but lacked comprehensive reliability testing in diverse populations. While electronic versions of scales like the NRS show promising validity and patient preference in telehealth, studies during the pandemic highlight gaps in standardization for non-English speakers and those with limited digital access, potentially exacerbating disparities.

Emerging Tools and Research

Recent advancements in pain assessment have leveraged digital technologies to enhance accessibility and objectivity beyond traditional self-report scales. Smartphone applications incorporating visual analog scale (VAS) sliders allow users to rate pain intensity interactively, facilitating real-time tracking and data sharing with healthcare providers. For instance, the Painometer app enables users to assess pain using multiple scales, including VAS, and has demonstrated usability in clinical settings for longitudinal monitoring.^[74] Similarly, dedicated VAS apps, such as the electronic VAS tool validated for pediatric use, provide reliable pain evaluation through mobile interfaces, reducing reliance on paper-based methods.^[75]^[76]^[77] Complementing these, AI-driven facial recognition tools like the PainChek app analyze facial expressions via smartphone cameras to detect pain automatically, particularly in populations unable to self-report, such as those with dementia; clinical trials have shown its efficacy in improving pain identification accuracy.^[78]^[79] Integration of biomarkers with neuroimaging techniques represents a shift toward objective pain measurement, addressing limitations of subjective reporting. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been used to develop multivariate "pain signatures" that predict individual pain intensity with high accuracy, as demonstrated in seminal work identifying neural patterns distinguishing pain from other sensations.^[80] Electroencephalography (EEG) complements this by capturing brain activity for chronic pain biomarkers; machine learning algorithms applied to EEG data have achieved promising classification of pain states, with recent studies validating cortical signatures for sensitivity prediction in healthy cohorts. These approaches, often combined via machine learning, enable composite biomarkers that correlate with self-reported pain, paving the way for hybrid objective-subjective assessments.^[81]^[82]^[83]^[84] Post-2020 research has explored virtual reality (VR) for immersive pain assessment, embedding scales within virtual environments to evaluate pain in context-specific scenarios. Systematic reviews of VR interventions highlight their use of numerical rating and VAS scales to measure pain before and after immersive sessions, showing reductions in intensity for chronic conditions like fibromyalgia. A 2025 scoping review of 36 studies confirmed that VR facilitates accurate pain tracking via integrated scales, enhancing engagement in assessment for diverse populations.^[85]^[86]^[87] The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has supported hybrid tools through its 2025 Global Year initiative, emphasizing digital and multimodal methods to integrate self-reports with technology in low- and middle-income settings.^[88] Future directions prioritize equity in pain research, addressing gaps in non-Western scales and underrepresented populations. Efforts to develop culturally adapted tools for low- and middle-income countries aim to mitigate global disparities, with IASP advocating for inclusive studies that incorporate diverse pain experiences. Recommendations include partnering with local researchers to validate scales in non-Western contexts and expanding biomarker research to ensure applicability across demographics, fostering more equitable pain assessment globally.^[89]^[90]^[88]^[91]

References

[1]
Pain Assessment - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Jun 22, 2025 · This scale consists of a line with endpoints labeled “no pain” and “worst possible pain,” where patients mark their pain level. The score ...
[2]
Pain Scale: What It Is and How to Use It - Healthline
A pain scale is a tool that doctors use to help assess a person's pain. A person usually self-reports their pain using a specially designed scale.Unidimensional Pain Scales · Categorical Scales · Multidimensional ToolsMissing: reliable | Show results with:reliable
[3]
Pain scales: Valuable tools or problematic practice?
Feb 8, 2023 · Pain scales are measurements that have been developed for healthcare providers to rate the intensity of patients' pain.
[4]
Pain Assessment: Practice Essentials, Overview, Technique
Oct 26, 2022 · It has been stated that an ideal pain measure would be sensitive, reliable, accurate, valid, and useful in both clinical and experimental ...Practice Essentials · Overview · Pain Assessment
[5]
Terminology - International Association for the Study of Pain | IASP
Allodynia is suggested for pain after stimulation which is not normally painful. Hyperesthesia includes both allodynia and hyperalgesia, but the more specific ...
[6]
Pain Management Center - Chapter 1
Pain—whether acute or chronic—is a multifactorial condition that has biological, psychological, and social contributors. This is referred to as the ...
[7]
Physiology, Pain - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
Jul 24, 2023 · Pain refers to the product of higher brain center processing; it entails the actual unpleasant emotional and sensory experience generated from nervous signals.
[8]
Biochemistry, Substance P - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
Jul 30, 2023 · Due to SP's role in pain transmission, capsaicin decreases the awareness of painful stimuli.[70][71][72] Capsaicin interferes with a ...Introduction · Cellular Level · Function · Mechanism
[9]
Understanding Endorphins and Their Importance in Pain Management
In the peripheral nervous system (PNS), beta-endorphins produce analgesia by binding to opioid receptors (particularly of the mu subtype) at both pre- and post- ...
[10]
Pathophysiology of Pain - Mechanisms of Vascular Disease - NCBI
Under certain conditions, pain can become maladaptive and persist as chronic pain. This pain serves no protective function and is described as pathological pain ...
[11]
CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain
Nov 4, 2022 · This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years.
[12]
Pain assessment: the cornerstone to optimal pain management - PMC
Pain assessment is critical to optimal pain management interventions. While pain is a highly subjective experience, its management necessitates objective ...Missing: decisions | Show results with:decisions
[13]
Effective pain management and improvements in patients' outcomes ...
Effective management of acute pain results in improved patient outcomes and increased patient satisfaction.
[14]
Assessment of Chronic Pain: Domains, Methods, and Mechanisms
Also, pain assessment allows clinicians and scientists to monitor the longitudinal course of the pain disorder and to quantify treatment effects.
[15]
Pain assessment in clinical trials: a narrative review - PMC - NIH
Pain is a symptom measured in many clinical trials. For pain as an outcome domain, trialists need to choose adequate outcome measure(s), as there are myriad ...Pain Assessment In Clinical... · Introduction · Systematic Reviews Also Do...
[16]
Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT ... - NIH
Typically considered to be ≥ 10-20% improvement on the 0-10 NRS, with > 30% improvement on the 0-10 NRS considered moderate improvement, though baseline levels ...
[17]
Clinical outcome assessment in clinical trials of chronic pain ...
Jan 21, 2021 · Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) measure outcomes that are meaningful to patients in clinical trials and are critical for determining whether a treatment is ...2. Types Of Clinical Outcome... · 4.1. 2. Pain Quality · 4.1. 2.1. Pain AffectMissing: tracking | Show results with:tracking<|control11|><|separator|>
[18]
Moving Beyond Pain as the Fifth Vital Sign and Patient Satisfaction ...
Appropriate pain assessment is the essential first step in pain management (Csomay Center, 2017). Every person with pain, including those with substance use ...
[19]
Ethical decision making in pain management: a conceptual framework
May 15, 2018 · In common medical ethics parlance, unrelieved pain can compromise a person's autonomy and increase vulnerability, whereas providing pain relief ...
[20]
Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Pain Assessment ... - NIH
Mar 14, 2022 · Patient suffering is not ethically acceptable and nurses must know that there is no value in maintaining the suffering, while searching for ...2. Materials And Methods · 3. Results · 4. Discussion
[21]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8953805/
[22]
https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001241
[23]
Sir Charles Sherrington's The integrative action of the nervous system
Apr 1, 2007 · In 1906 Sir Charles Sherrington published The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, which was a collection of ten lectures delivered two years before at ...
[24]
https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/130/4/887/278000
[25]
The history of pain measurement in humans and animals - PMC - NIH
Sep 15, 2022 · Pain measurement strategies in both humans and non-human animals have varied widely over the years and continue to evolve.
[26]
The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods
The McGill Pain Questionnaire consists primarily of 3 major classes of word descriptors--sensory, affective and evaluative--that are used by patients to ...
[27]
1973 - 1979 - International Association for the Study of Pain | IASP
A journal dedicated to the field of pain and to start an international association to help support the journal and advance the study of pain and its treatment.
[28]
WHO Analgesic Ladder - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
Apr 23, 2023 · The original ladder mainly consisted of three steps: First Step - Mild pain: non-opioid analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ...Missing: history mid-
[29]
[PDF] History of The Joint Commission's Pain Standards Lessons for ...
The standards emphasized the need for organizations to perform systematic assessments using quantitative measures of pain (eg, place pain on a 10-point scale), ...
[30]
Is the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale a Valid Tool for Assessing ...
The literature shows that it is a valid instrument for assessing pain intensity in children above 8 years of age.Missing: suitable | Show results with:suitable
[31]
Numeric Pain Rating Scale - Shirley Ryan AbilityLab
Jan 17, 2013 · Key Descriptions. The NPRS is an 11-point scale scored from 0-10: 1) “0” = no pain 2) “10” = the most intense pain imaginable ...
[32]
Numeric Rating Scale Modestly Accurate in Pain Assessment - AAFP
May 15, 2008 · Pain was categorized as mild (a rating of 1 to 3), moderate (4 to 6), and severe (7 to 10). Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) ...Missing: interpretation | Show results with:interpretation
[33]
[PDF] Outcome Measures - The British Pain Society
Jan 1, 2019 · “Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis”. J Rheumatol. 1990 Aug;17(8): ...
[34]
[PDF] Pain Relief Scale Is More Highly Correlated with Numerical Rating ...
Both VAS and. NRS values exhibited strong correlations (> 0.8) with PRS. Further, the differences between the. VAS-PRS R (0.859) and NRS-PRS R (0.915) were ...
[35]
[PDF] Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain ...
Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS ... Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet 1974;2:1127–31. 3. Downie WW ...
[36]
Validation of Digital Visual Analog Scale Pain Scoring With a ... - NIH
The visual analog scale (VAS) is a validated, subjective measure for acute and chronic pain. Scores are recorded by making a handwritten mark on a 10-cm line ...Missing: design | Show results with:design<|control11|><|separator|>
[37]
Visual Analog Scale - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The visual analog scale (VAS) is defined as a tool used to assess pain intensity, represented by a 100 mm line where the left end indicates no pain and the ...
[38]
A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Psychometric Properties of ...
Oct 26, 2021 · It is clear NPRS and the VAS ratings are feasible to implement, provide reliable scores and relate to multi-item patient-reported outcome measures.
[39]
Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory - PubMed
This paper describes the development of the Brief Pain Inventory and the various applications to which the BPI is suited. The BPI is a powerful tool and, having ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
[40]
Cross-validation of the factor structure of the McGill Pain Questionnaire
Low back pain patients' responses to the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) were factor analyzed using the principal factor method and direct oblique rotation ...
[41]
Development and preliminary validation of a pain measure specific ...
This paper describes the development and preliminary validation of the Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS), which is designed to assess distinct pain qualities ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
[42]
Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments
In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, ...
[43]
The Faces Pain Scale-Revised: toward a common metric in pediatric ...
The FPS-R is shown to be appropriate for use in assessment of the intensity of children's acute pain from age 4 or 5 onward.
[44]
Psychometric Properties of a Modified Version of the Faces Pain ...
We evaluated psychometric properties (validity, reliability, and responsiveness) of a modified Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) in 257 patients with sickle ...
[45]
State-of-“Cultural Validity” of Self-Report Pain Assessment Tools in ...
Many self-report pain assessment tools have not been tested and validated in many older adults of diverse cultures. As a result, self-report tools are limited ...
[46]
Development and psychometric evaluation of the Pain Assessment ...
The PAINAD is a simple, valid, and reliable instrument for measurement of pain in noncommunicative patients. Since the patient population used for its ...
[47]
Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: how to choose ...
This scale can be used for each type of pain, namely dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschesia and CPP. This self-report of pain is considered as the 'gold standard' ...
[48]
Pain scoring in endometriosis: entry criteria and outcome measures ...
Dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain should be measured separately using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), as in other chronic pain conditions (22). These ...
[49]
Bedside Evaluation of Early VAS/NRS Based Protocols for ... - NIH
Oct 29, 2021 · VAS/NRS assessment is compulsory even when patients do not spontaneously express pain. IV morphine titration is a daily practice recommended as ...Missing: serial | Show results with:serial
[50]
Severe pain management in the emergency department: patient ...
Feb 21, 2024 · Patients identified at triage as having severe pain using the VAS or NRS scales ... NRS score, they must confirm the initiation of the protocol.Abstract · Introduction · Materials and methods · Discussion
[51]
Measuring acute postoperative pain using the visual analog scale
Mar 1, 2017 · The 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) score is widely used to measure pain intensity after surgery. Despite this widespread use, it is unclear what constitutes ...
[52]
Postoperative pain assessment assessed by Visual Analog Scale ...
Postoperative pain assessment assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The pain scores at different time points in the rest (left) and cough (right) state ...
[53]
R3 Report Issue 11: Pain Assessment and Management Standards ...
Dec 20, 2017 · Effective Jan. 1, 2018, new and revised pain assessment and management standards will be applicable to all Joint Commission-accredited hospitals.Missing: crisis | Show results with:crisis
[54]
Pain Assessment and Management - Joint Commission
Oct 18, 2017 · The Joint Commission requires hospitals to monitor patients at high risk for adverse outcomes related to opioid treatment (for example, patients ...Missing: refinement | Show results with:refinement
[55]
Effects of pain management program on the length of stay of patients ...
Our obtained results showed that application of pain management program resulted in a reduction in length of hospitalization in the ICU, as subjects' mean ...
[56]
[PDF] IMPROVING PAIN MANAGEMENT FOR HOSPITALIZED MEDICAL ...
Effective pain management is a key aspect of efforts to reduce length of hospital stay and improve outcomes for medical and surgical patients.
[57]
Measures Applied to the Assessment of Fibromyalgia
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was designed to measure multiple clinically relevant aspects of pain such as pain intensity and interference from pain in cancer ...
[58]
Do the instruments used to assess fibromyalgia symptoms according ...
Jun 7, 2023 · BPI assesses pain severity and impact on a person's life with 15 items that assess presence, severity, location, functional impact, used ...
[59]
Psychometric properties of the Brief Pain Inventory among patients ...
Dec 9, 2010 · This study assessed the internal consistency reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) among patients with OA undergoing total ...
[60]
Subgrouping of rheumatoid arthritis patients based on pain, fatigue ...
To quantify pain intensity, we used the average pain severity score on the Brief Pain Inventory – short form (BPI-sf). The BPI-sf is a validated, nine-question ...
[61]
Visual Analogue Scale Cut-off Point of Seven Represents Poor ...
Dec 6, 2023 · The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a VAS cut-off point of 7 cm for each pain symptom correlates with a diminished quality of life in women with ...
[62]
Systematic review of quality of life measures in patients with ... - NIH
The SF-36, a generic HRQoL measure, was found to be the most frequently used scale, followed by the EHP-30, a measure specific to endometriosis. Both perform ...
[63]
The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System 25 Years Later - NIH
The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) represents one of the first symptom batteries in palliative care, and has since been validated by multiple groups, ...<|separator|>
[64]
The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System 25 Years Later
From the clinical perspective, ESAS is now commonly used for symptom screening and longitudinal monitoring in patients seen by palliative care, oncology, ...
[65]
A review of the reliability and validity of the Edmonton Symptom ...
The esas was first described in 1991 as a way to audit symptoms for patients on palliative care wards daily. This single-page screening tool has been praised ...
[66]
Chronic pain management in fibromyalgia: the INTEGRO ...
Oct 24, 2024 · Figure 4 reports McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) scores in the three dimensions: Pain Sensory, Pain Affective, and Pain Evaluative, across ...Missing: tracking | Show results with:tracking
[67]
Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain ...
Primary pain outcome: McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) total pain 0‐78 ... The cognitive behavioral therapy causes an improvement in quality of life in patients ...Missing: tracking | Show results with:tracking
[68]
Painometer - Apps on Google Play
Sep 9, 2025 · Painometer is a smartphone app used to assess and record pain intensity over time. It includes four of the most widely used scales to ...
[69]
Development and Testing of Painometer: A Smartphone App to ...
This study aims to 1) introduce Painometer, a smartphone app that helps users to assess pain intensity, and 2) report on its usability (ie, user performance and ...
[70]
VAS - Visual Analog Scale - App Store - Apple
This Visual Analog Scale allows reliable pain evaluation. It's simple, it's free and with no ads! Now your VAS is always available, right in your pocket!
[71]
Validation of an Electronic Visual Analog Scale App for Pain ...
Oct 26, 2022 · This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of an electronic visual analogue scale (e-VAS) method via a mobile health (mHealth) App in children and ...
[72]
Facial Analysis Technology for Pain Detection: A Potentially Useful ...
The PainChek app is a point-of-care tool that uses artificial intelligence (AI) analysis of facial expressions to automate part of the pain assessment process.
[73]
Automated pain detection using facial expression in adult patients ...
Apr 18, 2025 · We developed an automated system to assess pain intensity in adult patients based on changes in facial expression.<|separator|>
[74]
An fMRI-Based Neurologic Signature of Physical Pain
Apr 11, 2013 · In four studies involving a total of 114 participants, we developed an fMRI-based measure that predicts pain intensity at the level of the individual person.
[75]
Composite Pain Biomarker Signatures for Objective Assessment ...
Mar 6, 2019 · Machine-Learning to Generate Biomarkers of Pain Perception. Machine learning (ML) exploits the ability of computers to learn from and ...
[76]
Exploring electroencephalographic chronic pain biomarkers
Chronic pain is a major healthcare challenge and developing biomarkers that objectively assess pain is a crucial step toward improving its diagnosis and ...
[77]
Predicting Individual Pain Sensitivity Using a Novel Cortical ...
Jan 27, 2025 · This cohort study analyzes electroencephalography data from healthy participants to analyze and validate a cortical biomarker signature for ...Missing: detection | Show results with:detection
[78]
Advances and challenges in neuroimaging-based pain biomarkers
Oct 15, 2024 · We review the state-of-the-art candidates for neural biomarkers of acute and chronic pain. We classify these potential neural biomarkers into five categories.
[79]
Virtual Reality Interventions and Chronic Pain: Scoping Review
Feb 18, 2025 · Almost all non-qualitative studies used pain scales, either numerical rating scales or visual analog scales, as outcome measures (30/32, 96.9% ...
[80]
Virtual Reality Interventions and Chronic Pain: Scoping Review - PMC
Almost all non-qualitative studies used pain scales, either numerical rating scales or visual analog scales, as outcome measures (30/32, 96.9% studies).
[81]
Effects of Virtual Reality-Based Interventions on Pain ... - MDPI
VR-based interventions, particularly immersive with psycho-cognitive approaches, show potential in reducing pain catastrophizing.
[82]
2025 IASP Global Year - Pain Management, Research and ...
Aims and Objectives. The 2025 IASP Global Year will identify challenges and opportunities in addressing pain in low- and middle-income settings.Missing: hybrid | Show results with:hybrid
[83]
Global Inequities in Pain Treatment: How Future Research Can ...
Jan 18, 2022 · What to do Next to Increase Equity in Pain Research and Care · Recognize that inequities exist · Make pain research more inclusive · Partner with ...Missing: directions | Show results with:directions
[84]
Making Pain Research More Inclusive: Why and How - PMC - NIH
This paper offers guidance on promoting inclusion of underrepresented groups in pain research. We describe principles relevant to conducting more inclusive ...
[85]
Over 50 years of research on social disparities in pain and ...
Table 7 - Future directions for research on social disparities in pain: key recommendations. Topic, Recommendations. Geographic focus of pain research, More ...