Clinically Important Change in the Visual Analog Scale after Adequate Pain Control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: To define the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the visual analog scale (VAS) of pain severity by measuring the change in VAS associated with adequate pain control. Methods: The authors conducted a prospective, observational study. Adult emergency department (ED) patients with acute pain (<72 hours) were eligible. Patients rated their pain severity on a 100‐mm VAS on presentation and at discharge. Patients were asked if they would accept any analgesic, then if they would accept a parenteral analgesic before treatment. At discharge, they were asked whether they had received adequate pain control. Results: The authors enrolled 143 patients (mean age, 36 years; 54% female). The mean decrease in VAS was −30.0 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] =−36.4 to −23.6) for the 116 of 143 (81%) patients with adequate pain control at discharge vs. −5.7 (95% CI =−11.2 to −0.3) for the 27 with inadequate pain control (p < 0.001). At discharge, the mean VAS was 31.3 mm for those with adequate pain control vs. 55.1 for those without. Mean VAS for the 114 of 143 patients who would accept any analgesics initially was 64.7 vs. 47.1 for the 29 reporting no analgesic need. Initially, 77 patients would accept parenteral analgesics (mean VAS = 72.5 mm). Conclusions: A mean reduction in VAS of 30.0 mm represents a clinically important difference in pain severity that corresponds to patients' perception of adequate pain control. Defining MCID based on adequate analgesic control rather than minimal detectable change may be more appropriate for future analgesic trials, when effective treatments for acute pain exist.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 it