Abstract
A critical aspect for much human pain research is the ability of participants to communicate their first person, experiential perspective to a third person observer. This communication is frequently accomplished via pain ratings. The type of scale and how participants/patients may differentially use the scale has a major influence on the communication of pain experiences. The present study examined the role of sex on the pain rating process using both noxious and innocuous stimuli and two different types of rating scales. Participants underwent noxious heat, auditory and visual stimulation paradigms. Pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings were collected using the visual analog scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) in a random order. For noxious heat stimuli, low (44-45°C) and high (47-48°C) intensity stimuli were delivered. To identify if one rating scale allows better discrimination between different stimulus intensities and if this is dependent on sex, discrimination thresholds were calculated. Significant effect for rating scale and intensity level of stimuli were found for all stimulus modalities (noxious heat, auditory and visual) indicating that higher intensity and unpleasantness ratings were found using the NRS compared to the VAS. No effect of sex or interaction with sex was found. No differences in rating scale and sex were found for the discrimination thresholds. Biases in rating scales usage exist with NRS yielding higher ratings to the same stimuli. However, this bias does not appear to contribute significantly to sex differences in pain.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by a NIH/NINDS (R01NS085391, RCC) grant.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Cincinnati Childrens Hospital Medical Center.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Shared contribution
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding this work
Data Availability
Data will be shared upon request.
