The Sensation and Pain Rating Scale (SPARS) allows rating of non-painful as well as painful percepts. Although it performs well in the experimental context, its clinical utility has not been tested. This prospective, repeated-measures study mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the utility and performance of the SPARS in a clinical context, and to compare it with the widely used 11-point NRS for pain. Patients (n = 121) provided ratings on the SPARS and NRS at 6 time points: at first consultation, before and after sham and active clinical interventions, and at follow-up consultation. Clinicians (n = 9) reported each scale's usability and interpretability using Likert-type scales and free text questions, and responded to other questions with free text. Each data type was initially analysed separately: quantitative data were visualised and the ES II metric was used to estimate SPARS internal responsiveness; qualitative data were analysed with a reflexive inductive thematic approach. Data types were then integrated for triangulation and complementarity. The SPARS was well received and considered easy to use, after initial familiarisation. Clinicians favoured the SPARS over the NRS for clarity of interpretation and inter-rater reliability. SPARS sensitivity to change was good (ESII=0.9; 95% CI: 0.75-1.10). The greater perceptual range of the SPARS was deemed especially relevant in the later phases of recovery, when pain may recede into discomfort that still warrants clinical attention. The SPARS is a promising tool for assessing patient percept, with strong endorsement from clinicians for its clarity and superior perceptual scope.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

http://tinyurl.com/spars-peerreview

Financial support: VJM is supported by the US National Institutes of Health on grant K43 TW011442. GLM and HBL are supported by an Australian NHMRC Investigator Grant awarded to G. Lorimer Moseley (ID 1178444).

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:

Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia gave ethics approval for this work.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript