Correlations among algometry, the visual analogue scale, and the numeric rating scale to assess chronic pelvic pain in women

Abstract

Correlations among algometry, the visual analogue scale, and the numeric rating scale to assess chronic pelvic pain in women Mariane M. Alfonsina, Rita Chapona, Carlos A.B. de Souzab, Vanessa K. Genrob, Marília M.C. Mattiac, João S. Cunha-Filhoa,d,* a Graduate Program in Medical Sciences – School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2400, 2 andar, 90035-003 Porto Alegre, Brazil b Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre – HCPA, Rua Ramiro Barcelos 2350, 90035-903 Porto Alegre, Brazil c Graduate Program in Health Sciences: Gynaecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, UFRGS, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2400, 2 andar, 90035-003 Porto Alegre, Brazil d Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics – School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2400, 90035- 003 Porto Alegre, Brazil A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Received 27 August 2018 Received in revised form 15 April 2019 Accepted 29 April 2019 Available online 2 May 2019 Keywords: Chronic pelvic pain Numeric rating scale Visual analogue scale Pressure algometry Pain in endometriosis A B S T R A C T Objective: To investigate the correlation between the numerical rating scale, visual analogue scale, and pressure threshold by algometry in women with chronic pelvic pain. Study design: This was a cross-sectional study. We included 47 patients with chronic pelvic pain. All subjects underwent a pain assessment that used three different methods and were divided according to the cause of pain (endometriosis versus non-endometriosis). Moreover, we assessed the agreement between the scales (visual, analogue and algometry) using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The ICC for the numeric rating scale and the visual analogue scale regarding pain (0.992), dysmenorrhea (1.00) and dyspareunia (0.996) were strong. The agreement between the scales was excellent (p 0.01). The correlation between algometry and the scales showed a moderate and inverse association, and this correlation was statistically significant: as the scores on the numeric rating scale and the visual analogue scale regarding dyspareunia increased, the algometry thresholds decreased. Conclusions: The assessment of women with chronic pelvic pain should combine pressure algometry and the numeric rating scale or the visual analogue scale, because of their inverse correlations and satisfactory reliability and sensitivity, to make pain assessment less subjective and more accurate.