Pain Rating(통증 등급)란 무엇입니까?
Pain Rating 통증 등급 - Results Pain-relevant facial responses as well as pain ratings to phasic heat pain were significantly reduced when participants simultaneously immersed their hand in a hot water bath compared to baseline. [1] Pain ratings to pinpricks, the current level that evoked moderate pain, and pain induced by low frequency electrical stimulation were assessed in the forearm by an experimenter who was blind to the tDCS conditions. [2] Pain ratings habituated over a 60s period for 50Hz sinusoidal and square waveforms but not for low-frequency sinusoidal stimuli (p<0. [3] The current study used pain measures from three different modalities (pain tolerance, pain ratings, electrocortical reactivity) and assessed threat sensitivity and affiliative capacity to clarify the basis of associations between pain processing and antisocial behavior. [4] Pain was assessed using the Shoulder-Q with pain ratings/10 in three domains: rest, night-time and movement. [5] For genuine pain only, brain-to-behavior regression analyses highlighted a linkage between this inhibitory effect on the one hand, and pain ratings as well as empathic traits on the other. [6] The direct comparison revealed a stronger relationship between cortical data and pain ratings for unpleasantness. [7] Concurrently, pain ratings and autonomic responses were collected. [8] The amplitude of the NFR, ERP, ERSP, and pain ratings were compared between groups and conditions using a mixed ANOVA. [9] Participants reported their pain levels (0-10 scale) with application of 2 kg of pressure at each area, with a pain rating of ≥4 on the 0-10 scale considered moderate to severe pain. [10] A significant time x group interaction of pain ratings indicated a process of habituation in the gamers. [11] Significant and durable decreases were observed in pain ratings. [12] Pain ratings indicated that taste enhances placebo analgesia. [13] Differences in pain ratings between 'pressure-only' and 'pressure+cold' stimuli provided a measure of descending pain control. [14] Pain ratings were significantly lower with music listening (p <. [15] No significant changes in WPT and HPT were observed but pain ratings were significantly elevated at T2. [16] We examined spinal cord neural activation during TSSP in FM patients and healthy controls (HC) and used its functional connectivity with several brainstem nuclei to model the observed blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) time-course with pain ratings. [17] 1; 17 men, 33 women) injured in high impact MVAs included the scores on Steiner’s AAI, as well as the pain ratings on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), scores on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire, Subjective Neuropsychological Symptoms Scale (SNPSS), Whetstone Vehicle Anxiety Questionnaire, and on Driving Anxiety Questionnaire (DAQ). [18] There were no significant differences in the distress and pain ratings for patients and caregivers between the groups. [19] Pain ratings were obtained for initial, middle, and final 2-minutes of PAIN. [20] Pain rating was done using Numerical rating scale (NRS) before and 48 hours post-treatment and also in each subsequent hospital visit till complete subsidence of symptoms. [21] We found a significant group-by-stimulus intensity interaction on pain ratings. [22] SREP sensitization was indexed by the increase in pain ratings across the stimuli. [23] Neither real nor sham VR had any effect on pain ratings reported during the conditioning period or on HPT. [24] From December 2019 to March 2020, the music intervention was initiated upon admission to the PACU (Phase 1 of recovery) and discontinued when patients entered Phase 2 of recovery (n=50) Perioperative data collected from EHR of all patients included: vital signs, Pasero Opioid Induced Sedation Scale (POSS), narcotics and benzodiazepines administered and pain ratings. [25] Pain ratings confirmed that pain intensity was shaped by both sensory information and expectations. [26] RESULTS The MAST elicited a stressor response in both normal sleepers and individuals with sleep-onset insomnia, regardless of the condition, as evidenced by increases in negative affect and pain ratings. [27] Furthermore, NSSI specific variables such as pain ratings, as well as method, severity, and function of NSSI were assessed. [28] Pain ratings were lower for the low heat than the high heat, with corresponding reduced activations in pain-related regions. [29] For genuine pain only, brain-to-behavior regression analyses highlighted a linkage between this inhibitory effect on the one hand, and pain ratings as well as empathic traits on the other. [30] During the NFB sessions themselves, pain was assessed at multiple times during each session on a 0–10 rating scale, and ANOVA was used to examine changes in pain ratings and EEG amplitude both across and during sessions for both NFB and sham groups. [31] CONCLUSIONS Pain ratings and MCP arc of motion significantly improved following arthroplasty. [32] To this end, pain ratings, nociceptive flexion reflex amplitude, autonomic responses and electroencephalographic activity were measured in response to noxious electrical stimulation of the sural nerve in 20 healthy participants, who were subjected to four conditions: suggestions of hypoalgesia delivered with and without hypnosis induction (i. [33] This communication is frequently accomplished via pain ratings. [34]결과 참가자들이 기준선과 비교하여 동시에 뜨거운 물 목욕에 손을 담그면 통증 관련 안면 반응과 위상 열 통증에 대한 통증 등급이 크게 감소했습니다. [1] tDCS 조건에 대해 맹인인 실험자가 팔뚝에서 핀 찌름에 대한 통증 등급, 중등도의 통증을 유발하는 현재 수준 및 저주파 전기 자극에 의해 유발된 통증을 평가했습니다. [2] 50Hz 정현파 및 구형파에 대해서는 60초 동안 습관화된 통증 등급이지만 저주파 정현파 자극에 대해서는 그렇지 않습니다(p<0. [3] 현재 연구는 3가지 다른 양상(통증 내성, 통증 등급, 전기피질 반응성)의 통증 측정을 사용하고 통증 처리와 반사회적 행동 사이의 연관성의 기초를 명확히 하기 위해 위협 민감도와 소속 능력을 평가했습니다. [4] 통증은 휴식, 야간 및 움직임의 세 가지 영역에서 통증 등급/10으로 Shoulder-Q를 사용하여 평가되었습니다. [5] 진정한 통증에 대해서만, 뇌-행동 회귀 분석은 한편으로는 이러한 억제 효과와 다른 한편으로는 공감적 특성뿐만 아니라 통증 등급 사이의 연관성을 강조했습니다. [6] 직접적인 비교는 피질 데이터와 불쾌감에 대한 통증 등급 사이에 더 강한 관계가 있음을 보여주었습니다. [7] 동시에 통증 등급과 자율 반응이 수집되었습니다. [8] NFR, ERP, ERSP 및 통증 등급의 진폭은 혼합 ANOVA를 사용하여 그룹 및 조건 간에 비교되었습니다. [9] 참가자는 각 부위에 2kg의 압력을 가하여 통증 수준(0-10 척도)을 보고했으며 0-10 척도에서 통증 등급이 4 이상인 경우 중등도에서 중증 통증으로 간주됩니다. [10] 통증 등급의 상당한 시간 x 그룹 상호 작용은 게이머의 습관화 과정을 나타냅니다. [11] 통증 등급에서 유의미하고 지속적인 감소가 관찰되었습니다. [12] 통증 등급은 맛이 위약 진통을 향상시키는 것으로 나타났습니다. [13] '압력 전용' 자극과 '압력+냉기' 자극 간의 통증 등급 차이는 하강 통증 조절의 척도를 제공했습니다. [14] 통증 등급은 음악 감상에서 유의하게 낮았습니다(p <. [15] WPT와 HPT에서는 유의한 변화가 관찰되지 않았지만 통증 등급은 T2에서 유의하게 상승했습니다. [16] 우리는 FM 환자 및 건강한 대조군(HC)에서 TSSP 동안 척수 신경 활성화를 조사하고 여러 뇌간 핵과의 기능적 연결성을 사용하여 관찰된 혈액 산소 수준 의존성(BOLD) 시간 과정을 통증 등급으로 모델링했습니다. [17] 1; 높은 충격 MVA로 부상당한 남성 17명, 여성 33명)에는 Steiner의 AAI 점수, BPI(간단한 통증 목록) 통증 등급, ISI(불면증 중증도 지수) 점수, Rivermead 뇌진탕 후 증상 설문지가 포함되었습니다. , 주관적 신경심리학적 증상 척도(SNPSS), 숫돌 차량 불안 설문지 및 운전 불안 설문지(DAQ). [18] 환자와 간병인에 대한 고통 및 통증 등급에는 그룹 간에 유의한 차이가 없었습니다. [19] 통증 등급은 PAIN의 초기, 중간 및 마지막 2분에 대해 획득되었습니다. [20] 통증 평가는 치료 전과 치료 후 48시간, 그리고 증상이 완전히 가라앉을 때까지 각 후속 병원 방문 시 NRS(Numerical Rating Scale)를 사용하여 수행되었습니다. [21] 우리는 통증 등급에서 중요한 그룹별 자극 강도 상호작용을 발견했습니다. [22] SREP 감작은 자극 전반에 걸친 통증 등급의 증가에 의해 지수화되었습니다. [23] 실제 VR이나 가짜 VR 모두 컨디셔닝 기간 동안 또는 HPT에 보고된 통증 등급에 영향을 미치지 않았습니다. [24] 2019년 12월부터 2020년 3월까지 음악 중재는 PACU(회복의 1단계) 입원 시 시작되었으며 환자가 회복의 2단계(n=50)에 들어갈 때 중단되었습니다. 모든 환자의 EHR에서 수집한 수술 전후 데이터에는 활력 징후, Pasero Opioid Induced Sedation Scale(POSS), 마약 및 벤조디아제핀 투여 및 통증 등급. [25] 통증 등급은 통증 강도가 감각 정보와 기대 모두에 의해 형성된다는 것을 확인했습니다. [26] 결과 MAST는 부정적인 영향과 통증 등급의 증가로 입증되는 바와 같이 상태에 관계없이 정상적인 수면자와 수면 개시 불면증이 있는 개인 모두에서 스트레스 요인 반응을 이끌어냈습니다. [27] 또한 통증 등급과 같은 NSSI 특정 변수와 NSSI의 방법, 중증도 및 기능을 평가했습니다. [28] 통증 등급은 높은 열보다 낮은 열에 대해 더 낮았고 통증 관련 영역에서 상응하는 활성화가 감소했습니다. [29] 진정한 통증에 대해서만, 뇌-행동 회귀 분석은 한편으로는 이러한 억제 효과와 다른 한편으로는 공감적 특성뿐만 아니라 통증 등급 사이의 연관성을 강조했습니다. [30] NFB 세션 자체에서 통증은 0-10 등급 척도로 각 세션 동안 여러 번 평가되었으며 ANOVA는 NFB 및 가짜 그룹 모두에 걸쳐 세션 동안 및 세션 동안 통증 등급 및 EEG 진폭의 변화를 조사하는 데 사용되었습니다. [31] 결론 관절 성형술 후 통증 등급과 MCP 운동 호가 상당히 개선되었습니다. [32] 이를 위해 최면 유도 유무에 따른 통각 저하 제안의 4가지 조건을 받은 20명의 건강한 참가자를 대상으로 비복 신경의 유해한 전기 자극에 대한 통증 등급, 침해수용성 굴곡 반사 진폭, 자율 반응 및 뇌파 활동을 측정했습니다. (나. [33] 이 의사 소통은 종종 통증 평가를 통해 이루어집니다. [34]
neck disability index 목 장애 지수
The Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Patient-Specific Functional Scale, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), grip strength and cervical spine mobility were used as outcome measures. [1] One hundred and fifty-six patients answered the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Short-Form Neck Disability Index (SF-NDI), Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TKS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36). [2] Primary outcomes are neck pain intensity and disability (Numerical Pain Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index). [3] After signing the consent form, patients were taken for pre-intervention NDI (neck disability index) score, NPRS (numerical pain rating scale) & ROM (range of motion). [4] Poor recovery was measured at 6 and 12 months: Neck Disability Index (> 10%), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (>3/10), global perceived recovery (< +4) and return to pre-injury work (RTW). [5] Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), pressure pain threshold (PPT), heat/cold pain threshold (HPT/CPT), and active cervical range of motion (ROM) were measured at baseline immediately after the first session and after the sixth session. [6] Pain intensity, sleep disturbance, neck disability, kinesiophobia were assessed using numerical pain rating scale, insomnia severity index, neck disability index, tampas scale of kinesiophobia respectively at baseline, 4th week (mid-intervention) and 8th week (post intervention). [7] Seven participants met the inclusion criteria and received dry needling to three muscles that reproduced the participant's headache symptoms and completed the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Headache Disability Inventory (HDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). [8] Outcome Measures: Numerical pain rating scale, Neck disability Index and Cervical range of motion was used as outcome measures. [9] Endurance of DCF muscles was measured by the craniocervical flexion test using pressure biofeedback, pain intensity was measured using the numeric pain rating scale, and functional disability was assessed using the neck disability index questionnaire. [10] Pre- and post-intervention assessment was done with numeric pain rating scale, algometry, inclinometer and the neck disability index. [11] Pain intensity was measured on Numeric pain rating scale, range of motion measured with inclinometer and functional status with neck disability index (NDI). [12] The outcome measures used in the study were numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), neck disability index (NDI), range of motion (ROM) which were assessed before the intervention immediately after the first session and at 1st week and end of 2nd week. [13] The outcome measures were the numeric pain rating scale score, neck disability index score, beck depression inventory score, State-trait anxiety inventory score, fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire, and pain catastrophic scale results. [14] They were evaluated before the treatment, and after 4 weeks, using Numeric pain rating scale, Clinometer smart phone application and neck disability index. [15] Outcome measures include: Neck Disability Index, subjective pain ratings measured by a numeric pain rating scale, and 3D coordinates from motion capture data. [16] The outcome measures were pain intensity, measured by a numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), pain pressure threshold (PPT), measured with a digital algometer, and functional disability, evaluated by using the neck disability index (NDI). [17]목 장애 지수(NDI), 환자별 기능 척도, 수치 통증 평가 척도(NPRS), 악력 및 경추 가동성을 결과 척도로 사용했습니다. [1] 156명의 환자가 NPRS(Numerical Pain Rating Scale), SF-NDI(Short-Form Neck Disability Index), TKS(운동 공포증의 Tampa Scale), PCS(Pain Catastrophizing Scale), 36-Item Short에 응답했습니다. -양식 건강 설문 조사(SF-36). [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] nan [10] nan [11] nan [12] nan [13] nan [14] nan [15] nan [16] nan [17]
visual analog scale 시각적 아날로그 스케일
Average visual analog scale pain rating was 3. [1] We report a systematic search and synthesis of evidence about the measurement properties of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale and the Visual Analog Scale as patient-reported outcome measures in neck pain research. [2] Similarly, we will report Visual analog scales (VAS), Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), and Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale, Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS) after giving the vaccine to the infant. [3] The pain perception was evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) and Wong-Baker Faces pain rating scale (WBFPRS). [4] Pain intensity-measured using the visual analog scale, numeric pain rating scale, or McGill Questionnaire-was the outcome of interest. [5] The visual analog scale (VAS) pain rating was 1. [6] Patients completed the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Sport subscales, SF-12 Mental (MCS) and Physical (PCS) Component Summaries, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain rating (0-100). [7] Pain severity was assessed by the Pain Rating Index (PRI) and the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and by values obtained by a visual analog scale (VAS) indicating the intensity of pain felt in the moment of the examination and the intensity of pain felt in the week preceding the moment of the examination. [8] Perceived pain was measured primarily by visual analog scale (VAS)/Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), which showed that anxiety was measured by Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS). [9] Stimulus intensity was individually calibrated to produce pain ratings of approximately 40 on a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). [10] Randomized controlled trials that compared DN with other treatments or placebo and measured pain with a visual analog Scale or another numerical pain rating scale were included. [11]평균 시각 아날로그 척도 통증 등급은 3이었습니다. [1] 우리는 목 통증 연구에서 환자 보고 결과 측정으로서 Numeric Pain Rating Scale 및 Visual Analog Scale의 측정 속성에 대한 증거의 체계적인 검색 및 합성을 보고합니다. [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] nan [10] nan [11]
numeric rating scale 숫자 등급 척도
The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety (HAM-D, HAM-A), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Total Pain Rating Index (T-PRI) were administered. [1] The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Total Pain Rating Index (T-PRI), Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and for Anxiety (HAM-D and HAM-A), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) were administered. [2] Patients were provided the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (FPS) to correctly assess their GPP and LPP. [3] The baseline mean pain rating (0‐10 numeric rating scale) decreased from 7. [4] Patients completed the pain rating scales, including the numeric rating scale (NRS) and verbal rating scale (VRS), 60 min before colonoscopy. [5] The PSQI, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety (HAM-D and HAM-A), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Total Pain Rating Index (T-PRI), were administered. [6] In these studies, personal information forms developed by the researchers as data collection tools and the VAS scale, Numerical pain rating, the numeric rating scale were used to evaluate pain. [7] Objective To determine the relationship between Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) as pain intensity measures, we compared pain scores to sociodemographic and treatment data in patients revisiting the emergency department (ED). [8]Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index(PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale(ESS), 우울증과 불안에 대한 Hamilton Rating Scales(HAM-D, HAM-A), Numeric Rating Scale(NRS), Total Pain Rating Index(T -PRI)를 투여하였다. [1] 수치 평가 척도(NRS), 총 통증 평가 지수(T-PRI), 우울증 및 불안에 대한 해밀턴 평가 척도(HAM-D 및 HAM-A), 피츠버그 수면 질 지수(PSQI) 및 엡워스 졸음 척도(ESS) 투여되었다. [2] nan [3] 기준선 평균 통증 등급(0-10 숫자 등급 척도)은 7에서 감소했습니다. [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8]
pressure pain threshold 압박 통증 역치
Outcome were pain and functionality, evaluated using the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), pressure pain threshold (PPT) and Oswestry (ODI). [1] The assessments were carried out prior to the intervention, as well as immediately after, with the following outcomes: pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale-NPRS), qualitative pain characteristics (McGill Pain Questionnaire-MPQ), and pressure pain threshold (PPT) by pressure algometry (PA) in 4 points of the low back region. [2] The assessment included: 1) pain, using the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), pressure pain threshold (PPT), Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS), and classic body charts of the cranial region; 2) somatosensory function, by means of mechanical detection threshold (MDT) and pressure pain threshold (PPT); 3) jaw function, using the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale-20 (JFLS-20); and 4) psychosocial features, by means of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorders Questionnaire-7 (GAD-7). [3] During each session, they completed brief quantitative sensory testing (QST) including punctate pain ratings (PPR) and pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and rated their back pain severity. [4] Pain perception was analyzed with a 0-to-10 numerical pain rating scale and determination of pressure pain thresholds over each latent TrP. [5] RESULTS We observed that: (1) the increased pressure pain thresholds and heat pain thresholds on the dorsal surface of the hand and the biceps brachii muscle of the exercised limb (closed to the contracting muscle), and the decreased pressure pain ratings at the indexed finger of the unexercised limb; (2) more reductions of pain sensitivity on both the biceps brachii muscle and the dorsal surface of the hand induced by the high-intensity isometric exercise than the low-intensity isometric exercise; (3) both the high-intensity and low-intensity isometric exercise induced the reduction of N2 amplitudes and N2-P2 peak-to-peak amplitudes, as well as the reduction of ERP magnitudes elicited by the heat stimuli on the exercised limb. [6] The outcomes, pain and functionality, were evaluated using the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). [7] Pain intensity using the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and local (knee) and distant (elbow) hyperalgesia through the pressure pain threshold (PPT), were assessed to evaluate the pain modulatory system. [8]결과는 수치 통증 평가 척도(NPRS), 압력 통증 역치(PPT) 및 Oswestry(ODI)를 사용하여 평가된 통증 및 기능이었습니다. [1] 평가는 중재 전과 중재 직후에 수행되었으며 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었습니다. 통증 강도(Numeric Pain Rating Scale-NPRS), 정성적 통증 특성(McGill Pain Questionnaire-MPQ), 압력 통증 역치(PPT) 허리 부위의 4개 지점에서 압력 알고리즘(PA)에 의해. [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8]
visual analogue scale 시각적 아날로그 스케일
Before treatment, 1, 2 courses into treatment, the scores of pain rating index (PRI), pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI) were observed, and the clinical efficacy was evaluated in the two groups. [1] The numeric pain rating and visual analogue scales were the outcome measures most frequently reported as being often used by both primary care physicians and physical therapists. [2] There was no significant difference in pain rating index (PRI), visual analogue scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI) scores between the two groups after the first treatment (all P>0. [3] Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Numerical Pain Rating Score (NPRS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for satisfaction, active range of knee motion, and Short Form-12 Survey (SF-12) scores were collected pre-surgery and then at six-weeks and six-months interval with a p-value of 0. [4] In his study, three commonly used scales were used to assess the outcome after microdiscectomy, such as the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). [5] Participants had a diagnosis of grade I and II thumb CMC joint OA in their dominant hand and a pain rating of >4/10 on Visual Analogue Scale. [6] Pain assessment was performed using the faces pain rating scale or visual analogue scale. [7]치료 전 1, 2회 치료 과정에서 PRI(Pain Rating Index), VAS(Pain Visual Analogue Scale), PPI(Present Pain Intensity) 점수를 관찰하여 두 군에서 임상적 효능을 평가하였다. [1] 숫자 통증 등급과 시각적 아날로그 척도는 일차 진료 의사와 물리 치료사 모두가 자주 사용하는 것으로 가장 자주 보고된 결과 측정이었습니다. [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7]
11 point numerical 11포인트 숫자
Global pain was scored with the 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). [1] Patients divided into Group A (Administered with tramadol) and Group B (administered with nalbuphine) and patients evaluated for pain up to 48 hours after surgery using 11-point numerical pain rating scale rating from0-10 where 0 is no pain, 1-3 mild pain, 4-6 moderate pain, 7-9 severe pain and 10 as worst pain and use of rescue analgesia observed in either groups. [2] Participants were evaluated at prespecified time points over 8 hours after study drug administration, using several instruments, including the 11-point Numerical Pain Rating Scale, 5-point Pain Relief Scale, and 5-point Treatment Satisfaction Scale. [3] BACKGROUND Pain intensity is frequently measured on the 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NRS-PI), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 points (worst imaginable pain). [4] The primary outcomes are overall average pain in the knee joint during walking, as assessed through the 11-point Numerical Pain Rating Scale, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index physical function subscale. [5] Diabetic polyneuropathy was diagnosed using the modified Toronto Consensus (2011) criteria, while neuropathic pain was assessed using an 11-point Numerical Pain Rating Scale. [6] Pain symptoms were assessed using a pain diary (with the 11-point Numerical Pain Rating Scale, NPRS) and questionnaires, the investigations included skin biopsies, performed before and three months after treatment. [7]전체 통증은 11점 숫자 통증 평가 척도(NPRS)로 점수를 매겼습니다. [1] 환자를 그룹 A(트라마돌 투여)와 그룹 B(날부핀 투여)로 나누고 0-10(0은 통증 없음, 1-3)의 11점 숫자 통증 평가 척도 등급을 사용하여 수술 후 48시간까지의 통증에 대해 평가했습니다. 경미한 통증, 4-6 중등도의 통증, 7-9 심한 통증 및 10을 최악의 통증으로 표시하고 구조 진통의 사용이 어느 그룹에서나 관찰되었습니다. [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7]