Key result
Visual analog scale shows good reproducibility but is not interchangeable with the numeric scoring scale.
Why the study?
A comparison of visual analog and numeric scoring scales for assessing dynamic intraoperative mesenteric portovenography in dogs and cats was needed to evaluate reproducibility, repeatability, and interchangeability.
Does a visual analog scale compare favorably to a numeric scoring scale for assessing intraoperative mesenteric portovenography in dogs and cats?
Does a visual analog scale compare favorably to a numeric scoring scale for assessing intraoperative mesenteric portovenography in dogs and cats?
A visual analog scale is preferred over a numeric scoring scale for assessing dynamic intraoperative mesenteric portovenography in dogs and cats due to inherent deficiencies in the numeric scale.
VAS reproducibility supports its use in veterinary portovenography studies; leaves open interchangeability with numeric scales for clinical adoption.
A visual analog scale and a numeric scoring scale were designed for the assessment of dynamic intraoperative mesenteric portovenography in the dog and cat. Two independent observers evaluated both scoring scales for reproducibility (differences between observers) and repeatability (within-observer differences) in the assessment of 60 trial portovenograms. Agreement (interchangeability) of both scales was evaluated by comparing the scores obtained in the assessment of 200 portovenograms obtained from 100 dogs and cats. There was no statistical difference between the two observers when scoring the same portovenogram for either the visual analog scale (p = .730, reproducibility coefficient = 17.85 units) or the numeric scoring scale (scores identical, reproducibility coefficient = 0). There was no statistical difference, for either of the observers, when the same portovenogram was assessed on two separate occasions using the visual analog scale (observer 1, p = .35, repeatability coefficient = 17.93 units; observer 2, p = .42, repeatability coefficient = 8.27 units) or the numeric scoring scale (scores given by both observers were identical, repeatability coefficient = 0 for both observers). The results of comparison between the visual analog scale and numeric scoring scale confirmed that the two scoring systems were not directly interchangeable. Although both scoring systems demonstrated good reproducibility and repeatability, the numeric scoring scale possessed a number of inherent deficiencies that suggested it was not the method of choice for the assessment of the subjective data obtained from dynamic intraoperative mesenteric portovenography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
MacDonald et al. (2002) studied intraoperative mesenteric portovenography (n=100). Visual analog scale vs. Numeric scoring scale was evaluated on Reproducibility (differences between observers) (p=0.730). The visual analog scale demonstrated good reproducibility (P=0.730 between observers) and repeatability, but was not directly interchangeable with the numeric scoring scale.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: