Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: a randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers

被引:141
|
作者
Jamison, RN
Gracely, RH
Raymond, SA
Levine, JG
Marino, B
Herrmann, TJ
Daly, M
Fram, D
Katz, NP
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Brigham & Womens Hosp,Pain Management Ctr, Dept Anesthesiol Perioperat & Pain Med, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Psychiat, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Natl Inst Dent & Craniofacial Res, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[4] PHT Corp, Boston, MA 02129 USA
[5] Lincoln Technol Inc, Belmont, MA 02478 USA
关键词
visual analogue scales; palmtop computers; electronic data; verbal rating scale; pain;
D O I
10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00178-1
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
The visual analogue scale (VAS) is an established, validated, self-report measure usually consisting of a 10 cm line on paper with verbal anchors labeling the ends. Palmtop computers (PTCs also known as personal digital appliances) have incorporated VAS entry by use of a touch screen. However, the validity and psychophysical properties of the electronic VAS have never been formally compared with the conventional paper VAS. The aim of this Study is to determine the agreement between the electronic (eVAS) and paper (pVAS) modes. Twenty-four healthy volunteers were recruited for this study. Each study participant provided input using both measurement methods by marking the eVAS and pVAS in response to two kinds of stimuli, cognitive and sensory. A verbal rating scale of seven descriptors of intensity represented the cognitive stimuli. Participants were asked to mark the location that best corresponded to the pain intensity described by each word on scales from 'no pain' to 'worst possible pain'. The sensory stimuli used were a set of test weights consisting of plastic containers ranging from 7 to 129 g. The VAS for sensory stimuli ranged from 0 (no weight) to 'reference weight' (the heaviest weight outside the range of test weights). There were two types of input stimuli and two modes for recording responses for a total of four experimental conditions. Two evaluators independently measured and recorded all the pVAS forms to the nearest millimeter. A total of 2016 stimuli were rated. The overall correlation for ratings of both sensory and cognitive stimuli on eVAS and pVAS was r = 0.91. For paired verbal stimuli the correlation was r = 0.97. For paired sensory stimuli the correlation was r = 0.86. The correlation between group eVAS and pVAS ratings to common verbal stimuli was r = 0.99. For common sensory stimuli the group correlation was r = 0.99. The median of correlations comparing eVAS and pVAS ratings was 0.99 for verbal stimuli and 0.98 for sensory stimuli. Multivariate analyses showed equivalent stimuli to be rated much the same whether entered on paper VAS or PTC touch screen VAS (P < 0.0001). Support was found for the validity of the computer version of the VAS scale. (C) 2002 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:341 / 347
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Electronic vs. Paper Voter Guides and Citizen Knowledge: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Cann, Damon M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & POLITICS, 2020, 17 (03) : 291 - 303
  • [2] A COMPARATIVE, RANDOMIZED, SINGLE-DOSE, 2-WAY CROSSOVER BIOAVAILABILITY STUDY OF A CLONAZEPAM ORAL SOLUTION VS. TABLETS IN HEALTHY ADULT VOLUNTEERS.
    Marricco, N. Cardillo
    Bonhomme, M. C.
    Di Spirito, M.
    Offman, E. M.
    Cassidy, K.
    [J]. CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2012, 91 : S118 - S118
  • [3] A COMPARATIVE, RANDOMIZED, SINGLE-DOSE, 2-WAY CROSSOVER BIOAVAILABILITY STUDY OF A RAMIPRIL ORAL SOLUTION VS. TABLET IN HEALTHY ADULT VOLUNTEERS.
    Bonhomme, M. C.
    Marricco, N. Cardillo
    Di Spirito, M.
    Offman, E. M.
    Smith, S. P.
    Cassidy, K.
    [J]. CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2012, 91 : S122 - S122
  • [4] Handheld vs. Laptop Computers for Electronic Data Collection in Clinical Research: A Crossover Randomized Trial
    Haller, Guy
    Haller, Dagmar M.
    Courvoisier, Delphine S.
    Lovis, Christian
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2009, 16 (05) : 651 - 659
  • [5] The pharmacokinetics of nitrofurantoin in healthy female volunteers: a randomized crossover study
    Huttner, Angela
    Wijma, Rixt A.
    Stewardson, Andrew J.
    Olearo, Flaminia
    Von Dach, Elodie
    Harbarth, Stephan
    Bruggemann, Roger J. M.
    Mouton, Johan W.
    Muller, Anouk E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2019, 74 (06) : 1656 - 1661
  • [6] Effects of nizatidine and famotidine on gastric motility in healthy volunteers -a randomized crossover trial
    Taki, M.
    Tomita, T.
    Oshima, T.
    Fukui, H.
    Watari, J.
    Miwa, H.
    [J]. NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY, 2014, 26 : 77 - 77
  • [7] Paper vs. Tablet Computers: A Comparative Study using Tangible Flags
    Chipman, Gene
    Fails, Jerry Alan
    Druin, Allison
    Guha, Mona Leigh
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF IDC 2011: THE 10TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERACTION DESIGN AND CHILDREN (IDC2011), 2011, : 29 - 36
  • [8] The effect of dipyridamole on the pharmacokinetics of metformin: a randomized crossover study in healthy volunteers
    S. El Messaoudi
    F. G. Russel
    A. Colbers
    C. C. J. G. Bandell
    P. H. H. van den Broek
    D. M. Burger
    G. A. Rongen
    N. P. Riksen
    [J]. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2016, 72 : 725 - 730
  • [9] A comparison of new cardiovascular endurance test using the 2-minute marching test vs. 6-minute walk test in healthy volunteers: A crossover randomized controlled trial
    Surapichpong, Suchai
    Jisarojito, Sucheela
    Surapichpong, Chaiyanut
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2024, 19 (08):
  • [10] The effect of dipyridamole on the pharmacokinetics of metformin: a randomized crossover study in healthy volunteers
    El Messaoudi, S.
    Russel, F. G.
    Colbers, A.
    Bandell, C. C. J. G.
    van den Broek, P. H. H.
    Burger, D. M.
    Rongen, G. A.
    Riksen, N. P.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2016, 72 (06) : 725 - 730