Carl von Baeyer explores realistic pain assessment when self-report conflicts with observation and context
Self-report measures of pain intensity provide important primary outcomes in randomised trials of pain-relieving interventions. Scores from numerical, visual analogue, and other scales serve well in comparing group outcomes.1 But in the context of individual clinical treatment, certain catchphrases are commonly employed. Self-report of pain is “the gold standard”. Pain intensity scores are “the fifth vital sign”. Analgesic decisions are sometimes based on an “algorithm” that includes self-report of pain. Although such concepts help to draw attention to pain management, each one contributes to oversimplification of the process of assessing pain.
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- 1. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005; 113: 9-19.
- 2. IASP Task Force on Taxonomy. Part III: Pain terms, a current list with definitions and notes on usage. In: Merskey H, Bogduk N, editors. Classification of chronic pain. 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994: 209-214.
- 3. Berde C, McGrath P. Pain measurement and Beecher’s challenge: 50 years later. Anesthesiol 2009; 111: 473-474.
- 4. Schiavenato M, Craig KD. Pain assessment as a social transaction: beyond the “gold standard”. Clin J Pain 2010; 26: 667-676.
- 5. Pasero C, McCaffery M. Pain assessment and pharmacologic management. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby, 2011.
No relevant disclosures.