Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 5;128(5):874–888. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.11.032

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies. BNS, box numerical rating scale; CAS, coloured analogue scale; CCPS, colour circle pain scale; ENT, ear, nose and throat; FPS, face pain scale; ICU, intensive care unit; MPQ, McGill pain questionnaire; M-VRS, modified verbal rating scale with 11 description of pain intensity; NR, not reported; NRS, numerical rating scale; OPS, objective pain score; PCA, patient controlled analgesia; PPI, present pain intensity; PROM/s, patient-reported outcome measures; RWS, red wedge scale; sd, standard deviation; THA, total hip arthroplasty; TKA, total knee arthroplasty; VAS-R, visual analogue scale at rest; VAS-M; visual analogue scale at movement; VDS, verbal descriptor scale; VPS, 11-point verbal scale; VRS∗∗, 4-point verbal rating scale; VRS-5, 5-point verbal rating scale; VRS-P; verbal rating scale for pain relief.

First author, year (country) PROM/s Study design Surgical procedure Outcome(s) High anchor Main exclusion criteria Patient characteristics
n (Female%) Age (yr)
Mean (sd) [range]
Van Dijk, 201513 (The Netherlands) NRS Cross-sectional design Orthopaedic, ENT, gynaecological, cardiothoracic, Others Ability to detect desire for analgesics Worst pain imaginable ICU patients, not proficient in Dutch or English, ambulatory surgery 1084 (48) 53 [18–90]
Banos, 198934 (Spain) VAS
VRS-5
Descriptive correlational design Abdominal, orthopaedic, gynaecological Convergent validity 10
Unbearable pain
NR 212 (50) <30=43
31–50=69
>50=107
Akinpelu, 200230 (Nigeria) VAS
M-VRS
BNS
Cross-sectional design Caesarean section Convergent validity Worst pain
Worst imaginable
Worst pain
Complications, illness unconscious 35 (100) 31 (5)
Briggs, 199935 (UK) VAS
VRS∗∗
Secondary analysis of RCT Orthopaedic Convergent validity
Feasibility
Number 100
Severe pain at rest and movement
NR 417 (45) 47 (20)
64 (17)
Fadaizadeh, 200939 (Iran) VAS
FPS
Cross-sectional design General, gynaecological Convergent validity 10
Agonised
History of substance abuse, unconscious 82 (72)
34 GS
48 GYN
32 (14)
GYN 27 (7)
GS 38 (18)
Deloach, 199838 (USA) VAS
VPS
Descriptive correlational design Various type of surgeries Convergent validity Worst imaginable
Horrible pain
NR NR NR
Pesonen, 200851 (Finland) VAS
VRS-5
RWS
FPS-7
Descriptive correlational design Cardiac surgery: elective CABG, valvular repair Feasibility Worst possible pain
Unbearable pain
Worst possible pain
Worst possible pain
Dementia, cognitive impairment 160
FPS 80 (36)
RWS 80 (44)
73 (5)
Aubrun, 200332 (France) VAS
NRS
VRS
Behavioural scale
Prospective observational design Orthopaedic, abdominal, gynaecological, others Feasibility Worst imaginable pain
Worst imaginable pain
Severe
NR
NR 600 (47) 51 (17)
Myles, 199949 (Australia) VAS Clinical study General, orthopaedic, ENT, faciomaxillary, cardiothoracic Interpretability 100 worst pain ever Severe pain, inability to complete the VAS 52 (40) 42 (15)
Myles, 200550 (Australia) VAS Clinical study General, orthopaedic, ENT, faciomaxillary, cardiothoracic Interpretability 100 worst pain ever Postoperative delirium
Frailty, visual impairment
22 (NR) 33 (17)
Jensen, 200344 (USA) VAS
VRS-4
VRS-P
Secondary analysis of RCT Total knee replacement, hysterectomy, laparotomy Interpretability Worst pain
Severe pain
Complete relief
NR 123 (66) 65 (10)
Gerbershagen, 201141 (Germany) NRS Comparative study design Cholecystectomy, thyroidectomy, gastrointestinal, inguinal hernia repair, others Interpretability Worst imaginable pain Repeated surgical, procedures, mechanical ventilation 444 (44) 18–20=38
21–30=75
31–40=88
41–50=96
51–60=87
61–70=49
71–80=2
Cepeda, 200336 (USA) NRS
VRS
Clinical study Head and neck, thoracic, spinal abdominal, orthopaedic Interpretability Worst imaginable
Severe pain
NR 700 (62) 50 (15)
Jensen, 200245 (USA) VAS
VRS
Pain relief
Secondary analysis of RCT Total knee replacement, abdominal hysterectomy, laparotomy Responsiveness Worst pain
Severe pain
Complete relief
NR 246 (66) Knee 65 (10)
Laparotomy 41 (7.5)
Jenkinson, 199543 (UK) VAS
CPI
McGill
RCT Orthopaedic Responsiveness Severe pain NR 75 (64) Male: 41 (13)
Female: 43 (12)
Aubrun, 200331 (France) VAS Clinical study Orthopaedic, urological, abdominal gynaecological, vascular, thoracic Interpretability 100 Minor pain, delirium, dementia, non-French speaking 3045 (54) 50 (18)
Sriwatanakul, 198252 (USA) VAS Secondary analysis of RCT NR Interpretability Pain as bad as it could be NR NR NR
Van Giang, 201555 (Vietnam) FPS
NRS
Validation study Orthopaedic Concurrent validity Responsiveness The worst possible pain Hearing impairment
Altered mental status
144 (45) 37 (13)
Van Dijk, 201254 (The Netherlands) NRS
VRS
Cross-sectional design General, ENT, orthopaedic, neurosurgical, urological, gynaecological, plastic, vascular, cardiothoracic Interpretability 10
Worst pain imaginable
ICU patients
Non-Dutch speaking
Cognitive or hearing impairment, inability to use self-report
2674 (51) 73 (6)
Li, 200747 (China) VAS
NRS-11
VDS
FPS
Prospective clinical study NR Convergent validity
Scale reliability
Responsiveness
Feasibility
10 The most intense imaginable pain
10 The most intense imaginable pain
The most intense imaginable pain
Worst pain
NR 173 (45) 45.3 (15)
Li, 200946 (China) FPS
NRS
IPT
Descriptive correlational design Gastrointestinal, orthopaedic, abdominal Convergent validity
Scale reliability
Responsiveness
Feasibility
10
10
The most intense imaginable pain
Did not speak Chinese
More than one surgery
ASA score of 4
Chronic pain
180 (68) 72 (6)
Zhou, 201156 (China) VDS
NRS
FPS
CAS
Descriptive comparative design NR Criterion validity
Convergent validity
Test–retest reliability
Feasibility
Worst pain Severe cognitive impairment 200 (46) 56 (16)
Gagliese, 20056 (Canada) VAS-H
VAS-V
NRS
VDS
MPQ
Validation study NR Feasibility
Convergent validity
Criterion validity
10 Worst possible pain
10 Worst pain imaginable
Excruciating
On epidural or regional analgesia, ASA score of >3
Chronic pain, cognitive impairment, opioid or substance abuse
504 (58) 53 (15)
Tandon, 201653 (India) OPS
NRS
Descriptive correlational design Abdominal surgery Convergent validity Worst possible pain
Inadequate pain relief/pain at rest
Haemodynamic instability
Unable to use a PCA pump
93 NR
Aziato, 201533 (Ghana) NRS
FPS
CCPS
Two phases: qualitative and psychometric testing Caesarean section, leg amputation, laminectomy, laparotomy, others Convergent validity
Inter-rater reliability
Responsiveness
Feasibility
Worst possible pain
Hurts worst
NR 150 (77) <30=44.7
30–39=35
40+=21
Hamzat, 200942 (Ghana) VAS Validation study Various gynaecological procedures Cross-cultural validity Worst possible pain History of psychological or psychiatric disorders 60 (100) NR
Gagliese, 200340 (Canada) MPQ
PPI
VAS-R
VAS-M
Descriptive correlation design Radical prostatectomy Convergent validity
Responsiveness
Worst possible pain
5 Excruciating
10 Worst possible
10 Worst possible pain
Non-English speaker
ASA >3
Chronic pain
Chronic use of opioids
200 Younger patients: 56 (6)
Older patients: 67 (3)
Myles, 201748 (Australia) VAS Observational design General, orthopaedic, gynaecological, urological, major vascular, cardiac faciomaxillary, others Test–retest reliability
Interpretability
Very severe pain Poor English comprehension
Drug or alcohol dependence
Psychiatric disorder
Uncontrolled pain
219 (68) 53 (17)
Danoff, 201837 (USA) VAS Prospective observational design THA
TKA
Measurement error Worst possible pain Preoperative pain Catastrophizing Scale score greater than 30 points 304
THA (21)
TKA (30)
THA: 60 [20–81]
TKA; 63 [46–88]
Sloman, 20062 (Israel) NRS One group pretest–post-test design Abdominal, orthopaedic, others Interpretability 10 Excruciating NR 150 (47) 47 [14–89]
Bodian, 20013 (USA) VAS
McGill
Clinical study Intra-abdominal Surgery Interpretability
Desire for analgesics
Worst pain imaginable NR 150 (48) 49 [37–61]

The low anchor was “no pain”.