Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 883 items for :

  • "visual analog scale" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Ronald F. Young, Richard Kroening, Wayne Fulton, Robert A. Feldman and Israel Chambi

-up examination. Pain relief was assessed according to three criteria: 1) the patient's subjective evaluation of the degree of pain relief (this was estimated from a visual analog scale and compared on a percentage basis to the patient's baseline pain prior to stimulation); 2) the change in narcotic utilization; and 3) the patient's functional capacity. Table 3 summarizes the patient's subjective evaluation of pain relief. Sixteen of the original 48 patients (33%) considered that their pain had been completely relieved by stimulation. Nineteen patients (40%) thought that at

Restricted access

Yoshio Hosobuchi

patient's subjective evaluation of pain relief obtained during the infusion is scored on a visual analogue scale of 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10 = maximum tolerable pain). When possible, a subjective report of pain is confirmed with an objective test, such as straight-leg raising, to assess the degree of analgesia achieved. After the patient has received 30 mg of morphine, the opiate antagonist naloxone (0.2 to 0.8 mg) is given intravenously in a double-blind manner to determine whether the response to the opiate is reversible. Patients' response to this screening test

Restricted access

Ronald F. Young and V. Israel Chambi

assessed with the visual analog scale; 10 based on this scale of measurement, the patient was instructed to estimate the magnitude of his or her pain by placing a mark along a 10-cm horizontal straight line. The left end of the line represented absence of pain and the right end represented maximal pain intensity. The distance from the left end of the line to the patient's mark was measured with a millimeter ruler and the analog value was converted to a digital value in which zero represented the absence of pain and 10 maximal pain. Changes in pain intensity on the

Restricted access

Gudrun Silverbåge Carlsson, Kurt Svärdsudd and Lennart Welin

-being (health, hearing, vision, memory, level of physical fitness, temper, energy, and patience) was obtained by questionnaire. The men were asked to assess each item on a seven-point visual analogue scale, ranging from “excellent, could not be better” (1 point) to “very bad” (7 points). For assessment of stress the subjects were asked to classify themselves into one of six groups ranging from “never subject to stress during the last 5 years” to “constantly under stress during the last 5 years.” The answers were coded from 1 to 6, respectively. The number of appointments with

Restricted access

Tony L. Yaksh

TABLE 3 Effects of intrathecal and/or epidural morphine in clinical pain conditions Clinical Pain Endpoint References postoperative: thoracic/upper abdominal   visual analogue scale 1,25, 174   modified McGill pain questionnaire 1   mobilization scale 146   duration or time to first analgesic (> 10 hrs) 23, 129, 173   cumulative consumption of additional analgesics 23, 129   respiratory function     peak expiratory flow rate 146, 174     vital capacity 154, 174

Restricted access

Mario Meglio, Beatrice Cioni and Gian Franco Rossi

the exception of the vasculopathic patients who were invited to stimulate every other hour during the daytime hours. In patients with the Itrel system, regardless of the etiology of their pain condition, the stimulator was programmed as follows: 85 cycles/sec, 210 µ sec, cycled mode (64 seconds on, 1 to 4 minutes off) at an amplitude producing comfortable paresthesiae. The results are expressed as a percentage of analgesia (0% denotes no effect, 100% denotes complete pain relief) and were evaluated based on the patient's report on the visual analogue scale and on

Restricted access

Samuel J. Hassenbusch, Prem K. Pillay, Michelle Magdinec, Kathleen Currie, Janet W. Bay, Edward C. Covington and Marian Z. Tomaszewski

 pelvis, back, & legs 16 43  rectum only 8 22  perineum & genital region 6 16  pelvis & abdomen 4 11  low back only 2 5  bilateral chest wall 1 3 Preoperative Evaluation The evaluation of pain was a very important aspect of this study. Two separate pain scales, a visual analog scale, and a verbal analog scale, were utilized. The visual analog scale consisted of a horizontal bar measuring 10 cm in length. Each patient was asked to place a mark along this bar, where the left end represented no pain

Restricted access

Krishna Kumar, Rahul Nath and Gordon M. Wyant

-defined pathway involving evaluation and treatment by medical pain-control personnel in the setting of a pain clinic. In an attempt to quantify the intensity of pain, we use a visual analog scale 6, 10 with values of 0 to 100, and a modified McGill Pain Questionnaire. 23 These were used to evaluate the pain and the patient's reaction to it, and to assign an objective “pain score.” The process was repeated at 6 months and at yearly intervals thereafter, and formed one of the yardsticks for evaluation of our results. Patient selection is a key factor. Our patients fulfilled

Restricted access

Ronald R. Tasker, Gervasio T. C. DeCarvalho and Eugen J. Dolan

, a process that varied over time according to published data and accumulating personal experience. The degree of pain relief accomplished by surgery was assessed using a visual analog scale and by noting changes in analgesic drug intake, level of vocational and avocational activity, and quality of sleep; a good result constituted a reduction in pain of 50% or more, and a fair result a 25% to 50% reduction in pain for at least 1 year. The lesions responsible for the pain were traumatic in 65% of cases, iatrogenic in 12%, inflammatory in 9%, neoplastic in 6

Restricted access

Takashi Tsubokawa, Yoichi Katayama, Takamitsu Yamamoto, Teruyasu Hirayama and Seigou Koyama

excellent → poor 10 F, 58 thalamic infarct resistant resistant poor † 11 F, 59 thalamic infarct resistant resistant poor † * Pain reduction expressed on a visual analog scale: excellent ≥ 80%; good 60% to 79%; fair 40% to 59%; poor < 40%. † Stimulation system not internalized. All patients displayed hemiparesis of varying degrees. The patients complained of spontaneous pain of great intensity which they described as burning, tearing, or deep boring pain mostly in the upper extremities and trunk area. Two