Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 1453–1458 | Cite as

Accuracy of the Pain Numeric Rating Scale as a Screening Test in Primary Care

  • Erin E. Krebs
  • Timothy S. Carey
  • Morris Weinberger
Original Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Universal pain screening with a 0–10 pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS) has been widely implemented in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of the NRS as a screening test to identify primary care patients with clinically important pain.

DESIGN

Prospective diagnostic accuracy study

PARTICIPANTS

275 adult clinic patients were enrolled from September 2005 to March 2006.

MEASUREMENTS

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).

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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 WORDS

primary health care pain screening sensitivity and specificity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 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. 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
  3. 3.
    Gureje O, Simon GE, Von Korff M. A cross-national study of the course of persistent pain in primary care. Pain. 2001;92:195–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kroenke K, Jackson JL. Outcome in general medical patients presenting with common symptoms: a prospective study with a 2-week and a 3-month follow-up. Fam Pract. 1998;15:398–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fox JD, Gordon DB. Joint Commission pain standards: a progress report. APS Bulletin. 2002;12.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM, Fisher LD. Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures. Pain. 1999;83:157–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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
  10. 10.
    Rothman RL, DeWalt DA, Malone R, et al. Influence of patient literacy on the effectiveness of a primary care-based diabetes disease management program. JAMA. 2004;292:1711–1716.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perkins AJ, Kroenke K, Unutzer J, et al. Common comorbidity scales were similar in their ability to predict health care costs and mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1040–1048.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fejer R, Jordan A, Hartvigsen J. Categorising the severity of neck pain: establishment of cut points for use in clinical and epidemiological research. Pain. 2005;119:176–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jensen MP, Smith DG, Ehde DM, Robinsin LR. Pain site and the effects of amputation pain: further clarification of the meaning of mild, moderate, and severe pain. Pain. 2001;91:317–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paul SM, Zelman DC, Smith M, Miaskowski C. Categorizing the severity of cancer pain: further exploration of the establishment of cutpoints. Pain. 2005;113:37–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, Edwards KR, Cleeland CS. When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain. 1995;61:277–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turner JA, Franklin G, Heagerty PJ, et al. The association between pain and disability. Pain. 2004;112:307–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zelman DC, Dukes E, Brandenburg N, Bostrom A, Gore M. Identification of cut-points for mild, moderate and severe pain due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain. 2005;115:29–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keller S, Bann CM, Dodd SL, Schein J, Mendoza TR, Cleeland CS. Validity of the brief pain inventory for use in documenting the outcomes of patients with noncancer pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:309–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby JI, Shanti BF. Validation of the Brief Pain Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain. 2004;5:133–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113:9–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 22.
    Tyler EJ, Jensen MP, Engel JM, Schwartz L. The reliability and validity of pain interference measures in persons with cerebral palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:236–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peirce JC, Cornell RG. Integrating stratum-specific likelihood ratios with the analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:141–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH. Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. Third ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 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. 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
  27. 27.
    Schmitz N, Kruse J, Tress W. Application of stratum-specific likelihood ratios in mental health screening. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2000;35:375–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2003;106:337–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mularski RA, White-Chu F, Overbay D, Miller L, Asch SM, Ganzini L. Measuring pain as the 5th vital sign does not improve quality of pain management. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:607–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kroenke K. The many C’s of primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:708–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93:635–641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin E. Krebs
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Timothy S. Carey
    • 4
    • 5
  • Morris Weinberger
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Center on Implementing Evidence-Based PracticeRoudebush Veterans Affairs Medical CenterIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Center for Health Services and Outcomes ResearchRegenstrief Institute, Inc.IndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  4. 4.Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services ResearchUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  5. 5.Department of MedicineUniversity of North Carolina School of MedicineChapel HillUSA
  6. 6.Health Policy and AdministrationUniversity of North Carolina School of Public HealthChapel HillUSA
  7. 7.Center for Health Services Research in Primary CareDurham Veterans Affairs Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations