VAS and NRS, Same or Different? Are Visual Analog Scale Values and Numerical Rating Scale Equally Viable Tools for Assessing Patients after Microdiscectomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To compare the viability of the numerical rating scale (NRS) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) as a pain assessment tools among a large cohort of patients who underwent microdiscectomy. Summary of Background Data. The pain intensity (PI) reduction is a parameter of surgical treatment efficacy. The two most commonly used scales of PI are NRS and VAS. Many studies have shown strong similarities between those two scales, but the direct interchange is difficult. Methods. Patients, who underwent microdiscectomy, were prospectively enrolled into the study and assessed using VAS and NRS for the back (NRS-B) and the leg (NRS-L), Short Form of McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) included Pain Rating Index (PRI) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) 1 day before and 1 month and 3 months after the procedure. Results. 131 patients were included in the study. NRS-L, NRS-B, VAS, and ODI were significantly lower ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo><</a:mo> <a:mn>0.001</a:mn> </a:math> ) 1 month after microdiscectomy. NRS-L and NRS-B ratings remained at a similar level while VAS and ODI decreased after 3 months. The rate of decline of PI measured by NRS-L correlated statistically significant (rs = 0.366; <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo><</c:mo> <c:mn>0.001</c:mn> </c:math> ) with ODI 1 month after surgery. Before surgery, the most significant correlation was found between ODI and NRS-L (rs = 0.494; <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo><</e:mo> <e:mn>0.001</e:mn> </e:math> ), the lowest with NRS-B (rs = 0.319; <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo><</g:mo> <g:mn>0.001</g:mn> </g:math> ). 3 months after surgery, there was higher correlations between ODI and VAS (rs = 0.634) than NRS-L (rs = 0.265). PRI correlated significantly ( <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>p</i:mi> <i:mo><</i:mo> <i:mn>0.001</i:mn> </i:math> ) and more stronger with VAS than with NRS-L and NRS-B in every points of assessment. Conclusion. The results showed that PI measurements by NRS-L/NRS-B and VAS mutually correlate and impair functionality evaluated by ODI (convergent validity) but in different modes (differential validity). NRS and VAS are not parallel scales and assess different aspects of pain. The measurement of NRS-L 1 month after microdiscectomy seems to give quick insight into the effectiveness of the procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".