Visual analogue thermometer: a valid and useful instrument for measuring pain in burned patients

Choinière, Manon; Auger, François A.; Latarjet, J

doi:10.1016/0305-4179(94)90188-0

Cited by 67 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This consisted of the following: "100% healed," "'71 to 99% healed," "31 to 70% healed," "0 to 30% healed," "no healing," and "deterioration." In addition, the investigator considered the ease of application (extremely easy, very easy, somewhat easy, not very easy, and not at all easy), the subjects' anxiety (not at all anxious, a little anxious, somewhat anxious, a lot anxious, and extremely anxious), and pain during dressing changes (measured using the John Hopkins visual analog scale), 18 dressing adherence (lack of) to the wound bed (extremely good, very good, somewhat good, not very good, not at all good), bleeding on dressing removal (not at all, a little, Table 1…”

Section: Outcomes Measuredmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Open, Parallel, Randomized, Comparative, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness, Performance, Tolerance, and Safety of a Silver-Containing Soft Silicone Foam Dressing (Intervention) vs Silver Sulfadiazine Cream

Silverstein¹,

Heimbach

Meites³

et al. 2011

Journal of Burn Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study was implemented to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (Mepilex Ag) vs silver sulfadiazine cream (control) in the treatment of partial-thickness thermal burns. Individuals aged 5 years and older with partial-thickness thermal burns (2.5-20% BSA) were randomized into two groups and treated with the trial products for 21 days or until healed, whichever occurred first. Data were obtained and analyzed on cost (direct and indirect), healing rates, pain, comfort, ease of product use, and adverse events. A total of 101 subjects were recruited. There were no significant differences in burn area profiles within the groups. The cost of dressing-related analgesia was lower in the intervention group (P = .03) as was the cost of background analgesia (P = .07). The mean total cost of treatment was $309 vs $513 in the control (P < .001). The average cost-effectiveness per treatment regime was $381 lower in the intervention product, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1688 in favor of the soft silicone foam dressing. Mean healing rates were 71.7 vs 60.8% at final visit, and the number of dressing changes were 2.2 vs 12.4 in the treatment and control groups, respectively. Subjects reported significantly less pain at application (P = .02) and during wear (P = .048) of the Mepilex Ag dressing in the acute stages of wound healing. Clinicians reported the intervention dressing was significantly easier to use (P = .03) and flexible (P = .04). Both treatments were well tolerated; however, the total incidence of adverse events was higher in the control group. The silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing was as effective in the treatment of patients as the standard care (silver sulfadiazine). In addition, the group of patients treated with the soft silicone foam dressing demonstrated decreased pain and lower costs associated with treatment.

show abstract

Section: Outcomes Measuredmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Open, Parallel, Randomized, Comparative, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness, Performance, Tolerance, and Safety of a Silver-Containing Soft Silicone Foam Dressing (Intervention) vs Silver Sulfadiazine Cream

Silverstein¹,

Heimbach

Meites³

et al. 2011

Journal of Burn Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were three level III 153,174,175 and seven level IV diagnostic studies. 152,176 -181 One level III 153 and four level IV prognostic studies were reviewed.…”

Section: Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[207][208][209] VASs have also been found to have desirable scaling properties and treatment sensitivity in nonburn populations. 204 Choiniere et al 174 validated a VAStype measurement tool, the Visual Analog Thermometer, with 103 burn patients in a level III study. They found that the Visual Analog Thermometer, an adapted version of the VAS that does not require writing and consists of a plastic-colored sliding strip to indicate pain levels, was a valid, sensitive, and easily used instrument.…”

Section: Diagnosticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Burn Rehabilitation

Esselman

Thombs

Magyar‐Russell

et al. 2006

American Journal of Physical Medicine &Amp; Rehabilitation

259

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the faces scale, color scale, visual ''thermometers,'' or functional assessments, rather than numeric scales. [35][36][37][38][39][40] Self-reports of pain may be influenced by multiple factors, including physical pain, psychosocial factors, age, gender, ethnicity, cultural background, anxiety, and functional impairment. [41][42][43][44][45][46] Clinicians' perception of patients' pain does not correlate well with self-reported pain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Verbal Numeric Pain Scale: Effects of Patient Education on Self‐reports of Pain

Marco

Plewa

et al. 2006

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Visual analogue thermometer: a valid and useful instrument for measuring pain in burned patients

Cited by 67 publications

References 25 publications

An Open, Parallel, Randomized, Comparative, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness, Performance, Tolerance, and Safety of a Silver-Containing Soft Silicone Foam Dressing (Intervention) vs Silver Sulfadiazine Cream

An Open, Parallel, Randomized, Comparative, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness, Performance, Tolerance, and Safety of a Silver-Containing Soft Silicone Foam Dressing (Intervention) vs Silver Sulfadiazine Cream

Burn Rehabilitation

The Verbal Numeric Pain Scale: Effects of Patient Education on Self‐reports of Pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About