Accuracy of the Pain Numeric Rating Scale as a Screening Test in Primary Care
- 998 Downloads
Universal pain screening with a 0–10 pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS) has been widely implemented in primary care.
To evaluate the accuracy of the NRS as a screening test to identify primary care patients with clinically important pain.
Prospective diagnostic accuracy study
275 adult clinic patients were enrolled from September 2005 to March 2006.
We operationalized clinically important pain using two alternate definitions: (1) pain that interferes with functioning (Brief Pain Inventory interference scale ≥ 5) and (2) pain that motivates a physician visit (patient-reported reason for the visit).
22% of patients reported a pain symptom as the main reason for the visit. The most common pain locations were lower extremity (21%) and back/neck (18%). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the NRS as a test for pain that interferes with functioning was 0.76, indicating fair accuracy. A pain screening NRS score of 1 was 69% sensitive (95% CI 60–78) for pain that interferes with functioning. Multilevel likelihood ratios for scores of 0, 1–3, 4–6, and 7–10 were 0.39 (0.29–0.53), 0.99 (0.38–2.60), 2.67 (1.56–4.57), and 5.60 (3.06–10.26), respectively. Results were similar when NRS scores were evaluated against the alternate definition of clinically important pain (pain that motivates a physician visit).
The most commonly used measure for pain screening may have only modest accuracy for identifying patients with clinically important pain in primary care. Further research is needed to evaluate whether pain screening improves patient outcomes in primary care.
KEY WORDSprimary health care pain screening sensitivity and specificity
We thank Kristen Rake and Halle Amick for data collection and management, Joanne Garrett and Bob Konrad for assistance with data analysis, and Mike Pignone for his insightful critique and suggestions.
Dr. Krebs was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program; Dr. Carey was supported in part by NIH grant 1RO1AR051970; and Dr. Weinberger was supported by an HSR&D Career Scientist Award from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation provided funding for this study through the Clinical Scholars Program but had no role in study design, analysis, interpretation, or drafting of the manuscript.
- 1.Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Ambulatory Care. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 2006.Google Scholar
- 2.National Pharmaceutical Council and Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Pain: Current Understanding of Assessment, Management, and Treatments. Reston, VA: National Pharmaceutical Council and Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 2001.Google Scholar
- 5.Fox JD, Gordon DB. Joint Commission pain standards: a progress report. APS Bulletin. 2002;12.Google Scholar
- 6.National Pain Management Coordinating Committee, Veterans Health Administration. Pain as the 5th vital sign toolkit, revised edition. Washington, DC: National Pain Management Coordinating Committee, Veterans Health Administration; 2000.Google Scholar
- 8.Jensen MP, Karoly P. Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Turk DC, Melzack R, eds. Handbook of Pain Assessment. Second ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2001:15–34.Google Scholar
- 9.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services: Report of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services; 1996.Google Scholar
- 21.Cleeland CS. Pain assessment in cancer. In: Osoba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1991:293–305.Google Scholar
- 24.Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH. Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. Third ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.Google Scholar
- 25.Sackett DL, Straus DE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. Second ed. Churchill Livingstone; 2000.Google Scholar
- 26.Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Second ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.; 1991.Google Scholar