Two derivatives of the numeric rating scale (NRS) and visual analog scale (VAS), namely patient-reported percentage pain reduction (PRPPR) and calculated percentage pain reduction (CPPR), are commonly used when evaluating pain reduction. A small number of studies have attempted to assess the agreement between PRPPR and CPPR. However, they have been limited in their scope by a focus on specific types of pain, or by their focus on specific treatment modalities. As far as the authors of this article are aware, this is the first study to assess the agreement between PRPPR and CPPR in chronic pain patients, as well as the first to assess how the duration of treatment affects the correlations between PRPPR and CPPR. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to determine whether the duration of treatment affects CPPR and PRPPR, and the discrepancy and agreement between the two. Additionally, the study assessed whether individual treatment modalities, or the lack there of, impacted the discrepancy and correlation between PRPPR and CPPR. The mean PRPPR and CPPR for the entire patient population were 59.98 and 40.71, respectively. The mean discrepancy between the two parameters was 19.27. The agreement between PRPPR and CPPR, as measured by the concordance correlation coefficient, was 0.984 (95% C.I., 0.982-0.986).
Keywords: calculated percentage improvement in pain scale (C-PIPS); calculated percentage pain reduction (CPPR); patient-reported percentage improvement in pain scale (PR-PIPS); patient-reported percentage pain reduction (PRPPR).