Literature analysis of application of pain visual analogue scale among Chinese clinical researchers
10.3760/cma.j.cn131073.20240224.00817
- VernacularTitle:中国临床科研工作者对疼痛视觉模拟量表应用的文献分析
- Author:
Yiping HUANG
1
;
Kechang HUANG
Author Information
1. 山东第二医科大学附属医院麻醉与危重病医学科，潍坊 261031
- Keywords:
Visual analogue scale;
Document analysis;
Clinical researchers
- From:
Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology
2024;44(8):985-990
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the application of the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) in Chinese clinical researchers by analyzing the literature related to the VAS for pain in the Chinese Medical Journal Database in the past three years.Methods:The literature was searched from the Chinese Medical Journal Full Text Database from 2021 to 2023 using four Chinese vocabulary words that might be translated into " visual analog scale". The text, figures and tables in the " Materials and Methods" and " Results" sections of the literature that reflected authors′ application of VAS were analyzed after screening. Any errors or inadequacies in the definition of VAS, the target population, methods of pain intensity labeling and numerical acquisition, numerical units, and the cut-off points of VAS when converted to the verbal rating scale were identified and analyzed.Results:A total of 2 377 articles were retrieved, and 2 108 articles were finally included. Among the 2 108 articles, there were very few papers with completely correct description and expression of VAS, while 99.86% had errors or inappropriate aspects. The majority of the literature (77.00% to 95.11%) did not address the other key analysis points in this study, except for the challenging aspects of study subjects and VAS numerical units. In 2.51% of the literature, VAS was considered unsuitable for the study subject. About 14.56% of the literature contained incorrect descriptions of VAS definition. Only 7.21% and 3.98% of the literature accurately described the methods of pain intensity labeling and numerical acquisition for VAS. In 92.13% of the literature, VAS values were measured in " points". The VAS was confused with the numerical rating scale in up to 17.55% of the literature when converting into the verbal rating scale.Conclusions:Chinese clinical researchers lack sufficient knowledge about the VAS, and there are numerous errors or inappropriate aspects in their paper writing, which should be given sufficient attention.
