Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 22, 2026
A Protocol of Manual Tests to Measure Sensation and Pain in Humans
Published on: December 19, 2016
Stability, responsiveness, and reproducibility of a visual analog scale for treatment satisfaction in migraine
Christian Lucas1, Sophie Romatet, Claude Mekiès
1Neurology Clinic, Roger Salengro Hospital, Rue du 8 mai 1945, Lille Cedex, France. clucas@chru-lille.fr
Objectives:
To evaluate the stability, responsiveness, and reproducibility of a simple visual analog scale (VAS).
Background:
In order to help physicians in the management of migraine in everyday general practice and assess whether the treatments that they are currently prescribing are actually effective, a VAS of treatment satisfaction with acute migraine treatments has been developed.
Methods:
The study used an open-label, multicenter, prospective design. Adult patients fulfilling diagnostic criteria for migraine and who consulted a participating hospital or community neurology clinic were eligible. At inclusion, patients rated their satisfaction with their current treatment on the VAS. Those scoring 7-10 (satisfied) on the VAS were allocated to the VASCO cohort, and those scoring 0-4 (dissatisfied) were switched to almotriptan and allocated to the ALMO cohort. Patients scoring between 4 and 7 were assigned to 1 or other cohort at the physician's discretion. The VAS was re-administered at home the next day and also after the treatment of 3 further headaches, both at home and at a follow-up visit.
Results:
Ninety-eight patients in the VASCO cohort and 102 in the ALMO cohort were analyzed. Stability was evaluated in the VASCO cohort: 55/98 patients initially satisfied with treatment remained so at study end, whereas 7/98 became dissatisfied. Responsiveness of the VAS to a change in treatment was evaluated in the ALMO cohort: 64/102 patients moved to a higher treatment satisfaction category, whereas 6/102 moved to a lower one. Reproducibility of the VAS was determined in 4 settings (both at the inclusion visit and at study closure in both cohorts). In each setting, VAS scores were compared between consultation and at-home ratings. In 3 of the 4 settings (both measures in the ALMO cohort and at study closure in the VASCO cohort), good agreement was observed between the 2 ratings (κ = 0.62-0.69). At inclusion in the VASCO cohort, agreement was only fair (κ = 0.33).
Conclusions:
The VAS scale described here is a responsive and easy-to-use tool for evaluating treatment satisfaction and for monitoring changes to treatment if these are required.
