Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Schmerzerfassung

Measurement of pain

Beschreibung einer neuen Methode

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Schmerz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate a new modified visual analog scale, called the dolorimeter, together with a verbal rating scale (VRS) and a linear visual scale (VAS), in the measurement of acute postoperative pain. The scales were evaluated with reference to their sensitivity, reliability and validity, and correlation. During the study 200 patients 11–70 years of age (125 men, 75 women) were interviewed after orthopedic surgery to ascertain the intensity of the pain. We had the patients judge the intensity of pain before and 1 h after giving analgesics by using the dolorimeter, VRS, and VAS. At the end of the examination, we asked the patients whether the pain had decreased or not which method they preferred, and why they preferred this method. The results of this interrogation proved that the sensitivity of the VRS is low; its parameters overlap greatly on the analog, scale, and it is therefore too rough to be a sufficient measurement of pain. On the other hand, the high sensitivity of the two analog scales which patients can use to determine their individual pain intensity proved to be much more sensitive. All three methods correlated statistically; the highest correlation coefficients were found between the analog scales VAS and the dolorimeter. Because the dolorimeter is clearly preferred to the other methods, especially by elderly patients, we came to the conclusion that the dolorimeter is less abstract than the VAS and more practical to handle.

Zusammenfassung

Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, eine neue, modifizierte visuelle Analogskala, genannt “Dolormeter”, gemeinsam mit einer Verbalskala (VRS) und einer linear visueller Analogskala (VAS), die als bewährte Methoden gelten, in der Erfassung des akuten postoperativen Schmerzes zu überprüfen. Die Skalen sollten auf Sensitivität, Reliabilität und Validität untersucht sowie ihre Korrelationen zueinander bestimmt werden. In der Studie wurden 200 Patienten im Alter von 11–70 Jahren (125 Männer, 75 Frauen) nach einer Operaţion am Bewegungsapparat nach ihren Schmerzen befragt. Wir ließen die Patienten jeweils vor sowie eine Stunde nach einer Analgetikagabe die Intensität ihrer Schmerzen mit Hilfe von Dolormeter, VRS und VAS einschätzen. Am Ende der Untersuchung befragten wir die Patienten nach einem eventuellen Schmerznachlaß und welche Schmerzmeßmethode sie mit welcher Begründung vorziehen. Die Ergebnisse unserer Befragung beweisen die geringe Sensitivität der VRS, deren Begriffe sich auf den Analogskalen weit überlappen und sich somit ihre Grobheit und Unzulänglichkeit bestätigt sowie die hohe Sensitivität der beiden Analogskalen, auf denen der Patient seine Schmerzintensität genauer einstellen kann. Alle drei Methoden korrelieren statistisch hoch signifikant miteinander—die höchsten Korrelationskoeffizienten ergaben sich zwischen den Analogskalen VAS und Dolormeter. Da das Dolormeter eindeutig, besonders von älteren Patienten, gegenüber den anderen Skalen bevorzugt wurde, kamen wir zu dem Ergebnis, daß das Dolormeter weniger abstrakt als die VAS und praktischer in der Handhabung ist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bailey CA, Davidson PO (1976) The language of pain: intensity. Pain 2:319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bangert J, Tolksdorf, W (1984) Schmerzdiagnostik und Schmerzmessung; I. Experiementelle Verfahren. II. Klinische Aspekte. Anästh Intensivther Notfallmed 19:221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Blasius W, Kaiser HE (1980) Phylogenese und Ontogenese des Schmerzes, MMW 122:1671

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonica JJ (1979) Important, clinical aspects of acute and chronic pain. In: Beers RF, Bassett EG (eds) Mechanisms of pain and analgesic compounds. Raven Press, New York, p 15

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bonica JJ (1979) The relation of injury to pain (Letter to the editor), Pain, 7:203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chapman CR (1976) Measurement of pain: problems and issues In: Bonica JJ, Albe-Fessard D (eds) Advances in pain research and therapy, vol 1, Proceedings of the first world congress on pain. Raven Press, New York, p 345

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chapman CR, Casey RL, Dubner R, Foley KM, Gracely RH, Reading AE (1985) Pain measurement: an overview (review article) Pain 22:1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Charpentier J (1972) Schmerzparameter beim Menschen. In: Janzen R, Keidel WD, Herz A, Steichele C (Hrsg) Schmerz: Grundlagen—Pharmakologie—Therapie. Thieme, Stuttgart New York, S 29

    Google Scholar 

  9. Crockett DJ, Prakachin KM, Craig KD (1977) Factors of the language of pain in patient and volunteer groups. Pain 4:175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dowling J (1983) Autonomic measures and behavioral indices of pain sensivity. Pain 16:193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dundee JW, Loan WB (1972) Die Bewertung des Schmerzes. In: Janzen R, Keidel WD, Herz A, Steichele C (Hrsg) Schmerz: Grundlagen—Pharmakologie—Therapie. Thieme, Stuttgart New York, S 46

    Google Scholar 

  12. El-Baz NMI, Faber LP, Jensik RJ (1984) Continuous epidural infusion of morphine for treatment of pain after thoracic surgery: a new technique. Anesth Analg 63:757

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Eriksson MBE, Sjölund BH (1980) Der Schmerzsinn. Schmerz 1:25

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gorsky BH (1981) The nature of pain. In Pain: origin and treatment. Huber, Bern Stuttgart Wien, S 3

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gracely RH (1983) Pain language and ideal assessment. In: Melzack R (ed) Pain measurement and assessment. Raven Press, New York, p 71

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gracely RH, Dubner R (1981) Pain assessment in humans—a reply to Hall, Pain 11:109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gracely RH, Mc Grath P, Dubner R (1978) Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors. Pain 5:5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gracely RH, Mc Grath P, Dubner R (1978) Validity and sensitivity of ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors: manipulation of affect by diazepam, Pain 5:19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gracely RH, Wolskee PJ (1983) Semantic functional measurement of pain: integrating perception and language. Pain 15:389

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Graham C, Bond SS, Gerkovich MM, Cook MR (1980) Use of the Mc Gill Pain Questionnaire in the assessment of cancer pain: replicability and consistency. Pain 8:377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hall W (1981) On “ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors”. Pain 11:101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hensel H (1972) Messen: Phänomenale und operationale Aspekte. In: Janzen R, Keidel WD, Herz A, Steichele C (Hrsg) Schmerz: Grundlagen—Pharmakologie—Therapie. Thieme, Stuttgart New York, S 29

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hunter M, Philips C, Rachman S (1979) Memory for pain. Pain 6:35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Huskisson, EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet II:1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Huskisson EC (1983) Visual analogue scales In: Melzack R (ed) Pain measurement and assessment. Raven Press, New York, p 33

    Google Scholar 

  26. Keele KD (1983) The temporal aspects of pain: the pain chart. In: Melzack R (ed), Pain measurement and assessment. Raven Press, New York, p 205

    Google Scholar 

  27. Keidel WD (1972) Zum Problem der “subjektiven” und “objektiven” Quantifizierung des Schmerzes. In: Janzen R, Keidel WD, Herz A, Steichele C (Hrsg) Schmerz: Grundlagen—Pharmakologie—Therapie. Thieme, Stuttgart, New York, S 16

    Google Scholar 

  28. Klein G (1983) Postoperative Schmerztherapie—Teil 1. Anaesth Intensivmed 24:197

    Google Scholar 

  29. Klepac RK, Lander E (1983) Laboraty-induced and acute iatrogenic pain. In: Melzack R (ed) Pain, measurement and assessment. Raven Press, New York, p 105

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kremer E, Atkinson JH jr (1981) Pain measurement: construct validity of the affective dimension of the Mc Gill Pain Questionnaire with chronic benign pain patients. Pain 11:93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kremer E, Atkinson JH, Ignelzi RJ (1981) Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain 10:241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Leavitt F, Garron DC, Whisler WW, Sheinkop MB (1978) Affective and sensory dimensions of back pain. Pain 4:273

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lembeck F (1980) Pharmakologie dünner Schmerzfasern. MMW 122:1672

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Levine JD, Gordon NC, Smith R, Fields HL (1981) Analgesic responses to morphine and placebo in individuals with postoperative pain. Pain 10:379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Meissner FM (1980) Interdisziplinäre Schmerzbehandlung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Elektrostimulation und Biofeedback-Therapie. Schmerz 1:5

    Google Scholar 

  36. Melzack R (1975) The Mc Gill Pain Questionnaire: major, properties and scoring methods. Pain 1:277

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Melzack R (1983) Concepts of pain measurement. In: Melzack R (ed) Pain measurement and assessment. Raven Press, New York, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  38. Melzack R, Torgerson WS (1971) On the language of pain. Anesthesiology 34:50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MIJ (1976) The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia 31:1191

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Scott J, Huskisson EC (1976) Graphic representation of pain. Pain 2:175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Sriwatanakul K, Kelvie W Lasagna L (1982) The quantification of pain: an analysis of words used to describe pain and analgesia in clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 32:143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Sriwatanakul K, Kelvie W, Lasagna L, Calimlim JF, Weis OF, Mehta G (1983) Studies with different types of visual analogue scales for measurement of pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther 34:234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sternbach RA (1983) Ethical, considerations in pain research in man. In: Melzack R (ed) Pain measurement and assessment. Raven Press, New York, p 259

    Google Scholar 

  45. Swerdlow M (1972) Probleme der Schmerzbewertung in der Klink. In Janzen R, Keidel WD, Herz A, Steichele C (Hrsg) Schmerz: Grundlagen—Pharmakologie—Therapie. Thieme, Stuttgart New York, S 52

    Google Scholar 

  46. Taenzer, P (1983) Postoperative pain: relationships among measures of pain, mood, and narcotic requirements. In: Melzack R (ed) Pain measurement and assessment. Raven Press, New York, p 111

    Google Scholar 

  47. Teske K, Daut RL, Cleeland CS (1983) Relationsships between nurses’ observations and patients self-reports of pain. Pain 16:289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Wolff BB (1983) Laboratory methods of pain measurement. In: Melzack R (ed) Pain measurement and assessment. Raven Press, New York, p 7

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zimmermann M, Handwerker HO (Hrsg) (1984) Schmerz—Konzepte und ärztliches Handeln. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinische Forschung Hoechst AG, Frankfurt

    B. Heinen

  2. Städtisches Krankenhaus, Kaiserslautern

    D. Kirsch

  3. Zentrale Abteilung für Anästhesie der Krankenhäuser des Landkreises Biberach, Deutschland

    E. Lanz

  4. Merrell Dow Pharma GmbH, Eisenstraße 40, D-6090, Rüsselsheim

    E. v. Gablenz

Authors
  1. E. v. Gablenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Heinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Kirsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Lanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gablenz, E.v., Heinen, B., Kirsch, D. et al. Schmerzerfassung. Schmerz 2, 144–150 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02528613

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02528613

Search

Navigation