Search

The variability in pain drawing styles and analysis methods has raised concerns about the reliability of pain drawings as a screening tool for nonpain symptoms. In this study, a data-driven approach to pain drawing analysis has been used to enhance the reliability. The aim was to identify distinct clusters of pain patterns by using latent class analysis (LCA) on 46 predefined anatomical areas of a freehand digital pain drawing. Clusters were described in the clinical domains of activity limitation, pain intensity, and psychological factors. A total of 21,123 individuals were included from 2 subgroups by primary pain complaint (low back pain (LBP) [n=15,465]) or midback/neck pain (MBPNP) [n = 5658]). Five clusters were identified for the LBP subgroup: LBP and radiating pain (19.9%), radiating pain (25.8%), local LBP (24.8%), LBP and whole leg pain (18.7%), and widespread pain (10.8%). Four clusters were identified for the MBPNP subgroup: MBPNP bilateral posterior (19.9%), MBPNP unilateral posterior + anterior (23.6%), MBPNP unilateral posterior (45.4%), and widespread pain (11.1%). The clusters derived by LCA corresponded to common, specific, and recognizable clinical presentations. Statistically significant differences were found between these clusters in every self-reported health domain. Similarly, for both LBP and MBPNP, pain drawings involving more extensive pain areas were associated with higher activity limitation, more intense pain, and more psychological distress. This study presents a versatile data-driven approach for analyzing pain drawings to assist in managing spinal pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pen-on-paper pain drawing are an easily administered self-reported measure that enables patients to report the spatial distribution of their pain. The digitalization of pain drawings has facilitated the extraction of quantitative metrics, such as pain extent and location. This study aimed to assess the reliability of pen-on-paper pain drawing analysis conducted by an automated pain-spot recognition algorithm using various scanning procedures. One hundred pain drawings, completed by patients experiencing somatic pain, were repeatedly scanned using diverse technologies and devices. Seven datasets were created, enabling reliability assessments including inter-device, inter-scanner, inter-mobile, inter-software, intra- and inter-operator. Subsequently, the automated pain-spot recognition algorithm estimated pain extent and location values for each digitized pain drawing. The relative reliability of pain extent analysis was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient, while absolute reliability was evaluated through the standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change. The reliability of pain location analysis was computed using the Jaccard similarity index. The reliability analysis of pain extent consistently yielded intraclass correlation coefficient values above 0.90 for all scanning procedures, with standard error of measurement ranging from 0.03% to 0.13% and minimum detectable change from 0.08% to 0.38%. The mean Jaccard index scores across all dataset comparisons exceeded 0.90. The analysis of pen-on-paper pain drawings demonstrated excellent reliability, suggesting that the automated pain-spot recognition algorithm is unaffected by scanning procedures. These findings support the algorithm's applicability in both research and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study explores sex‐specific differences in pain localization using pain drawings in female patients with endometriosis. Traditional human body outlines (HBOs) used for pain drawings are often viewed as male, making accurate pain assessment difficult. The study aims to compare pain localization and extent between patients presented with sexless and female HBOs. Methods: A total of 49 female patients with endometriosis completed questionnaires and pain drawings (n = 24 and n = 26 with individually designed sexless and female HBOs, respectively). The Ruzika similarity index was used to investigate potential differences in pain drawings between sexless and female HBOs. Hypothesis testing was applied to compare the number of pixels marked in the pain extents and to investigate the suitability of the presented body outline. Results: Sex of HBOs used in pain drawings had no effect on pain area, and no statistically significant differences were found in pain localization or area between female and sexless outlines. Most, but not all participants found the body outlines suitable. Conclusions: The findings suggest that differences in the resulting areas marked in the pain drawings were negligible and the preferences for sexless pain drawings were not significant, so that a sexless body outline for pain drawings could be a good choice, especially when a study does not focus on one specific sex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A method of pain assessment is the drawing of pain on a specially designed manikin where the patients color the area representing their pain distribution. In recent years, software applications have been developed for the purpose of digital pain drawing data acquisition and processing. Although such specific software applications have already been released, they have been built with obsolete programming tools. The purpose of the study was to investigate the test – retest reliability of a new pain drawing analysis software, in a sample of patients with shoulder pain. Data collected from 31 subjects with shoulder pain. Participants were asked twice to color their pain distribution in the painting environment of a tablet software application called 'Pain Distribution.' The reliability of pain extent was found to be good (ICC = 0.80). The Jaccard index for the reliability of pain location was found to be moderate, equal to 42.02 ± 19.13%. The results demonstrated good reliability of pain extent and moderate reliability of pain location using the new pain distribution analysis application 'Pain Distribution.' This pain drawing software application could be a reliable, inexpensive, and clinically usable solution for assessing the distribution of pain in patients with shoulder pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background This study explores sex‐specific differences in pain localization using pain drawings in female patients with endometriosis. Traditional human body outlines (HBOs) used for pain drawings are often viewed as male, making accurate pain assessment difficult. The study aims to compare pain localization and extent between patients presented with sexless and female HBOs. Methods A total of 49 female patients with endometriosis completed questionnaires and pain drawings (n = 24 and n = 26 with individually designed sexless and female HBOs, respectively). The Ruzika similarity index was used to investigate potential differences in pain drawings between sexless and female HBOs. Hypothesis testing was applied to compare the number of pixels marked in the pain extents and to investigate the suitability of the presented body outline. Results Sex of HBOs used in pain drawings had no effect on pain area, and no statistically significant differences were found in pain localization or area between female and sexless outlines. Most, but not all participants found the body outlines suitable. Conclusions The findings suggest that differences in the resulting areas marked in the pain drawings were negligible and the preferences for sexless pain drawings were not significant, so that a sexless body outline for pain drawings could be a good choice, especially when a study does not focus on one specific sex.

Abstract Background To evaluate whether digital pain extent is associated with an array of psychological factors such as optimism, pessimism, expectations of recovery, pain acceptance, and pain self-efficacy beliefs as well as to analyse the association between digital pain extent and pain intensity and pain-related disability in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in a primary health care setting was carried out including 186 individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Patient-reported outcomes were used to assess psychological factors, pain intensity, and pain-related disability. Digital pain extent was obtained from pain drawings shaded using a tablet and analysed using novel customized software. Multiple linear regression models were conducted to evaluate the association between digital pain extent and the aforementioned variables. Results Digital pain extent was statistically significantly associated with pain intensity. However, digital pain extent was not associated with any psychological measure nor with pain-related disability. Discussion The results did not support an association between digital pain extent and psychological measures.

Background and Aims: Pain drawings are commonly used in the clinical assessment of people with cervical radiculopathy. This study aimed to assess (1) the agreement of clinical interpretation of pain drawings and MRI findings in identifying the affected level of cervical radiculopathy, (2) the agreement of these predictions based on the pain drawing among four clinicians from two different professions (i.e., physiotherapy and surgery) and (3) the topographical pain distribution of people presenting with cervical radiculopathy (C4–C7). Methods: Ninety‐eight pain drawings were obtained from a baseline assessment of participants in a randomized clinical trial, in which single‐level cervical radiculopathy was determined using MRI. Four experienced clinicians independently rated each pain drawing, attributing the pain distribution to a single nerve root (C4–C7). A post hoc analysis was performed to assess agreement. Outcome measures: Percentage agreement and kappa values were used to assess the level of agreement. Topographic pain frequency maps were created for each cervical radiculopathy level as determined by MRI. Results: The radiculopathy level determined from the pain drawings showed poor overall agreement with MRI (mean = 35.7%, K = −0.007 to 0.139). The inter‐clinician agreement ranged from fair to moderate (K = 0.212–0.446). Topographic frequency maps revealed that pain distributions were widespread and overlapped markedly between patients presenting with different levels cervical radiculopathy. Conclusion: This study revealed a lack of agreement between the segmental level affected determined from the patient's pain drawing and the affected level as identified on MRI. The large overlap of pain and non‐dermatomal distribution of pain reported by patients likely contributed to this result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To evaluate whether digital pain extent is associated with an array of psychological factors such as optimism, pessimism, expectations of recovery, pain acceptance, and pain self-efficacy beliefs as well as to analyse the association between digital pain extent and pain intensity and pain-related disability in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in a primary health care setting was carried out including 186 individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Patient-reported outcomes were used to assess psychological factors, pain intensity, and pain-related disability. Digital pain extent was obtained from pain drawings shaded using a tablet and analysed using novel customized software. Multiple linear regression models were conducted to evaluate the association between digital pain extent and the aforementioned variables. Results: Digital pain extent was statistically significantly associated with pain intensity. However, digital pain extent was not associated with any psychological measure nor with pain-related disability. Discussion: The results did not support an association between digital pain extent and psychological measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain is an unpleasant sensation that signals potential or actual bodily injury. The locations of bodily pain can be communicated and recorded by freehand drawing on 2D or 3D (manikin) surface maps. Freehand pain drawings are often part of validated pain questionnaires (eg, the Brief Pain Inventory) and use 2D templates with undemarcated body outlines. The simultaneous analysis of drawings allows the generation of pain frequency maps that are clinically useful for identifying areas of common pain in a disease. The grid-based approach (dividing a template into cells) allows easy generation of pain frequency maps, but the grid's granularity influences data capture accuracy and end-user usability. The grid-free templates circumvent the problem related to grid creation and selection and provide an unbiased basis for drawings that most resemble paper drawings. However, the precise capture of drawn areas poses considerable challenges in producing pain frequency maps. While web-based applications and mobile-based apps for freehand digital drawings are widely available, tools for generating pain frequency maps from grid-free drawings are lacking. Objective: We sought to provide an algorithm that can process any number of freehand drawings on any grid-free 2D body template to generate a pain frequency map. We envisage the use of the algorithm in clinical or research settings to facilitate fine-grain comparisons of human pain anatomy between disease diagnosis or disorders or as an outcome metric to guide monitoring or discovery of treatments. Methods: We designed a web-based tool to capture freehand pain drawings using a grid-free 2D body template. Each drawing consisted of overlapping rectangles (Scalable Vector Graphics elements) created by scribbling in the same area of the body template. An algorithm was developed and implemented in Python to compute the overlap of rectangles and generate a pain frequency map. The utility of the algorithm was demonstrated on drawings obtained from 2 clinical data sets, one of which was a clinical drug trial (ISRCTN68734605). We also used simulated data sets of overlapping rectangles to evaluate the performance of the algorithm. Results: The algorithm produced nonoverlapping rectangles representing unique locations on the body template. Each rectangle carries an overlap frequency that denotes the number of participants with pain at that location. When transformed into an HTML file, the output is feasibly rendered as a pain frequency map on web browsers. The layout (vertical-horizontal) of the output rectangles can be specified based on the dimensions of the body regions. The output can also be exported to a CSV file for further analysis. Conclusions: Although further validation in much larger clinical data sets is required, the algorithm in its current form allows for the generation of pain frequency maps from any number of freehand drawings on any 2D body template. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) is common during pregnancy but the causes remain poorly understood. Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is an inherited trait, with joint mobility beyond normal limits and is assumed to be related with PGP. The aim of this project was to study the association between self-reported GJH and the presence of PGP during pregnancy. Methods In this cohort study, 4884 Swedish-speaking women were consecutively recruited at their first visit for registration in the national antenatal screening programme in Sweden. We used the five-part questionnaire (5PQ) to assess GJH and pain drawings to identify PGP. Our primary outcome was the presence of PGP during the entire pregnancy and secondary outcomes were PGP in each trimesters. We tested the associations with logistic regression analysis, and adjusted for age and ethnicity. Results In all, 2455 (50.3%) women responded to both questionnaires. The prevalence of self-reported GJH was 28.7%. A higher proportion of women with GJH than women without GJH reported PGP during the entire pregnancy (47.9% vs. 41.0%), particularly in trimester 1 (31.6% vs. 22.0%). Thus, women with GJH also had higher odds of PGP during the entire pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.27: 95% CI 1.11–1.47) and in trimester 1 (aOR 1.54: 95% CI 1.20–1.96), but the associations were not statistically significant in trimester 2 (aOR 1.24: 95% CI 0.82–1.88) or trimester 3 (aOR 1.20: 95% CI 0.99–1.45). The odds of PGP in pregnancy increased with increasing numbers of positive answers to the 5PQ (p for linear trend

Background: Understanding the causes and mechanisms underlying musculoskeletal pain is crucial for developing effective treatments and improving patient outcomes. Self-report measures, such as the Pain Drawing Scale, involve individuals rating their level of pain on a scale. In this technique, individuals color the area where they experience pain, and the resulting picture is rated based on the depicted pain intensity. Analyzing pain drawings (PDs) typically involves measuring the size of the pain region. There are several studies focusing on assessing the clinical use of PDs, and now, with the introduction of digital PDs, the usability and reliability of these platforms need validation. Comparative studies between traditional and digital PDs have shown good agreement and reliability. The evolution of PD acquisition over the last 2 decades mirrors the commercialization of digital technologies. However, the pen-on-paper approach seems to be more accepted by patients, but there is currently no standardized method for scanning PDs., Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of PD analysis performed by a web platform using various digital scanners. The primary goal was to demonstrate that simple and affordable mobile devices can be used to acquire PDs without losing important information., Methods: Two sets of PDs were generated: one with the addition of 216 colored circles and another composed of various red shapes distributed randomly on a frontal view body chart of an adult male. These drawings were then printed in color on A4 sheets, including QR codes at the corners in order to allow automatic alignment, and subsequently scanned using different devices and apps. The scanners used were flatbed scanners of different sizes and prices (professional, portable flatbed, and home printer or scanner), smartphones with varying price ranges, and 6 virtual scanner apps. The acquisitions were made under normal light conditions by the same operator., Results: High-saturation colors, such as red, cyan, magenta, and yellow, were accurately identified by all devices. The percentage error for small, medium, and large pain spots was consistently below 20% for all devices, with smaller values associated with larger areas. In addition, a significant negative correlation was observed between the percentage of error and spot size (R=-0.237; P=.04). The proposed platform proved to be robust and reliable for acquiring paper PDs via a wide range of scanning devices., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a web platform can accurately analyze PDs acquired through various digital scanners. The findings support the use of simple and cost-effective mobile devices for PD acquisition without compromising the quality of data. Standardizing the scanning process using the proposed platform can contribute to more efficient and consistent PD analysis in clinical and research settings., (© Corrado Cescon, Giuseppe Landolfi, Niko Bonomi, Marco Derboni, Vincenzo Giuffrida, Andrea Emilio Rizzoli, Paolo Maino, Eva Koetsier, Marco Barbero. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org).)

Background: A pain drawing is a self-administered assessment that requires the patient to shade in on a body chart the areas in which he or she experiences pain, regardless of the intensity. Pain drawings have already been validated in several adult populations., Objectives: The aim of this study is to establish adolescents' test-retest reliability in reporting the extent and location of their pain using a paper-based pain drawing., Study Design: A one-day test-retest reliability study was set up., Setting: The study took place in 2 separate locations-a pediatric hospital and a private physiotherapy practice in Ticino, in the southern part of Switzerland. This reliability study was approved by the local ethics committee of Ticino (2021-00492 CE 3832)., Methods: Adolescents with musculoskeletal pain (aged 11-16 years) were included. All participants were asked to shade the areas in which they experienced pain over the previous week. After the administration of a questionnaire and the acquisition of further personal data, the pain drawing was administered again. The pain drawings were then scanned and analyzed using a digital platform, which allowed the extraction of pain extent and location values. The test-retest reliability was evaluated on these data. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess the reliability of the reporting of the pain extent, whereas the Jaccard similarity coefficient was used to calculate the reliability of the reporting of the pain location., Results: The reporting of the pain extent was observed to have excellent test-retest reliability: ICC2,1: 0.959 (95% CI: 0.925-0.978). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference close to 0: -0.010% (limits of agreements -0.962 to 0.942). The reliability of the reporting of pain location was also supported by the Jaccard index mean score of 0.82 (± 0.19)., Limitations: Reliability of reporting may vary depending on the nature of the pain, its duration, or the type of disorder and body areas involved., Conclusions: Adolescents complaining musculoskeletal pain showed reliability in reporting pain extent and location using pain drawings.

Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are characterised by complex symptomatology and their assessment can be enhanced using pain drawings (PD). Objectives: To evaluate the location and extent of pain in people TMD using digital PD, and to explore their association with clinical features. Reliability of pain extent and pain location using PD was also assessed. Methods: Forty volunteers with TMD completed two consecutive digital PDs. Clinical features were captured from self‐reported questionnaire. Additionally, secondary hyperalgesia was measured using the pressure pain threshold (PPT). The correlation between pain extent and clinical features was investigated using Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Reliability of pain extent was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland‐Altman plots. The Jaccard index was computed to assess the reliability of pain location. Results: Analysis of the PDs indicated that people with TMD commonly experience pain in other body regions including the neck, the shoulder and the low back. Except for PPT and pain catastrophising, all other clinical features were significantly correlated with pain extent. The ICCs of pain extent for all body charts were very high (ICCs 95% CI from 0.73 to 0.96), and Bland‐Altman plots showed mean biases close to zero with narrow limits of agreement. The reliability of pain location was also supported by Jaccard index mean scores above 0.68. Conclusions: People with TMD showed widespread pain, and pain extent was associated with pain intensity, neck and headache‐related disability, depression, anxiety, hyperventilation and central sensitivity. The reliability of measuring pain extent and pain location was confirmed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The reliability of pain assessment in frail and older adults has seldom been assessed. This study aims to assess the test‐retest reliability of (1) the number of painful body sites, (2) pain intensity, and (3) pain extent in institutionalized older adults. Methods: Seventy‐four older adults who were institutionalized were assessed in 2 separate sessions, 2 days to 1 week apart, for pain intensity, number of painful body sites, and pain extent (in pixels) using a vertical pain numeric scale (0 to 10), a body chart divided into 50 body regions, and ImageJ, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable differences (MDDs) were calculated. Results: In session 1, the mean values (± standard deviation) were 5.54 ± 2.12 points for pain intensity, 4.47 ± 3.27 for number of painful body sites, and 2,726.00 ± 2,322.09 for pain extent. ICCs were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.89) for pain intensity, 0.89 (95% CI = 0.83 to 0.93) for number of painful body sites, and 0.74 (95% CI = −0.07 to 0.91) for pain area. The MDDs were 2.46 for pain intensity, 3.14 for number of painful body sites, and 4,997.60 for pain extent. Conclusions: The vertical pain rating scale and the body chart seem reliable to assess pain intensity and number of pain sites, respectively. The wide CI for the ICC found for pain area and the high measurement error compromise its potential clinical relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Craniomandibular Function is the property of Quintessence Publishing Company Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) is common during pregnancy but the causes remain poorly understood. Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is an inherited trait, with joint mobility beyond normal limits and is assumed to be related with PGP. The aim of this project was to study the association between self-reported GJH and the presence of PGP during pregnancy.Methods: In this cohort study, 4884 Swedish-speaking women were consecutively recruited at their first visit for registration in the national antenatal screening programme in Sweden. We used the five-part questionnaire (5PQ) to assess GJH and pain drawings to identify PGP. Our primary outcome was the presence of PGP during the entire pregnancy and secondary outcomes were PGP in each trimesters. We tested the associations with logistic regression analysis, and adjusted for age and ethnicity.Results: In all, 2455 (50.3%) women responded to both questionnaires. The prevalence of self-reported GJH was 28.7%. A higher proportion of women with GJH than women without GJH reported PGP during the entire pregnancy (47.9% vs. 41.0%), particularly in trimester 1 (31.6% vs. 22.0%). Thus, women with GJH also had higher odds of PGP during the entire pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.27: 95% CI 1.11-1.47) and in trimester 1 (aOR 1.54: 95% CI 1.20-1.96), but the associations were not statistically significant in trimester 2 (aOR 1.24: 95% CI 0.82-1.88) or trimester 3 (aOR 1.20: 95% CI 0.99-1.45). The odds of PGP in pregnancy increased with increasing numbers of positive answers to the 5PQ (p for linear trend < 0.001) for the entire pregnancy and in trimester 1 (p for linear trend < 0.001), but not in trimesters 2 or 3 (p = 0.13 and p = 0.06, respectively).Conclusions: Compared to women with normal joint mobility, women with GJH had higher odds of reporting PGP during pregnancy and the odds increased with number of positive responses to the 5PQ. The associations were present in trimester 1 but did not reach statistical significance in trimester 2 and 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Using a computer algorithm to quantify pain drawings could be useful, especially when large numbers of drawings need to be assessed. Whilst informal visual assessment of pain drawings can give clinicians a quick impression of the extent of pain and its location, formal quantification of pain drawings by computer for research purposes is not necessarily trivial. The current study compared seven different approaches to quantification in a large sample of clinical spinal pain drawings. Methods: A large number (n = 55,720) of pain drawings were extracted from the SpineData database, a clinical registry of spinal pain patients in the Region of Southern Denmark. Drawings were analyzed both as pixel (raster) and vector based images, with different approaches based on the raw pain drawing, simple encircling polygons, convex-hull encircling polygons and discrete anatomical regions. Data were analyzed using principal component analysis, correlation and linear regression, as well as informal visual inspection of outlier pain drawings. Results: Eighty-one percent of the variance could be explained by the first principal component, which we interpreted as the true score variance, i.e. the variance attributable to differences in pain area between individuals. The second principal component explained 10% of the variance and was loaded differentially by polygon-based methods and non-polygon-based methods. Correlations between the different approaches ranged from 0.66 to 1.00. Some approaches correlated so strongly as to be interchangeable, others tended to bias area estimates significantly. Visual inspection of outlier pain drawing indicated that when the different approaches to quantification yielded different results, characteristic patterns could be identified in the style and patterns of those pain drawings. Conclusions: The different approaches reflected the same underlying construct (pain area), but could not be relied upon to produce the same area estimates and were affected by the interaction between drawing style and quantification approach. To some extend, the "correct" choice of quantification method is specific to and dictated by the style of each pain drawing. A differentiated approach is required in which the results of quantification and the drawing style are considered in combination. We provide suggestions for such differentiated approaches taking into account the nature of the drawing data (raster vs. vector) and the method of analysis (partly vs completely automated). Implications: The chosen method of quantifying pain drawings in combination with the drawing style of the individual patient, can impact the resulting area estimate to a significant degree. These issues should be considered before undertaking computerized area estimation of pain drawings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pain drawings have been frequently used in the preoperative evaluation of spine patients. For lumbar conditions comprehensive research has established both the reliability and predictive value, but for the cervical spine most of this knowledge is lacking. The aims of this study were to validate pain drawings for the cervical spine, and to investigate the predictive value for treatment outcome of four different evaluation methods. Methods: We carried out a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, comparing cervical disc replacement to fusion for radiculopathy related to degenerative disc disease. A pain drawing together with Neck Disability Index (NDI) was completed preoperatively, after 2 and 5 years. The inter- and intraobserver reliability of four evaluation methods was tested using κ statistics, and its predictive value investigated by correlation to change in NDI. Results: Included were 151 patients, mean age of 47 years, female/male: 78/73. The interobserver reliability was fair for the modified Ransford and Udén methods, good for the Gatchel method, and very good for the modified Ohnmeiss method. Markings in the shoulder and upper arm region on the pain drawing were positive predictors of outcome after 2 years of follow-up, and markings in the upper arm region remained a positive predictor of outcome even after 5 years of follow-up. Conclusions: Pain drawings were a reliable tool to interpret patients’ pain prior to cervical spine surgery and were also to some extent predictive for treatment outcome.

The revival of pain drawings as digital body maps for visualizing pain and discomfort changes the way we understand patients and communicate with them. Data stemming from simple drawings of musculoskeletal pain helped reveal the significance and impact of single versus multi-site pain reports. To achieve the next big step, we will need to go beyond pain site assessment and capture a more complete clinical picture of pain as it unfolds. Recent digital pain mapping studies show hidden patterns of pain expression within these marked pain sites. This mini-review reflects on the knowledge obtained from simple paper pain drawings, touches upon new digital technologies, and discusses how these technologies will allow us to reinvent the way we perceive and discuss pain.

Objective. Our aims were 1) to investigate whether perceived pain extent, assessed from the pain drawing, relates to clinical, psychological, and psychophysical outcomes in women with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS); 2) to assess differences in pain extent depending on the presence of median or extramedian symptoms; and 3) to investigate differences in pain extent according to severity (minimal, moderate, or severe) or laterality (unilateral or bilateral) of CTS. Methods. One hundred forty (N�0) women with CTS completed pain drawings, which were subsequently digitized, allowing pain extent to be calculated. Clinical features including pain intensity (numerical pain rating scale, 0�) and disability (Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire), psychological features including depression (Beck Depression Inventory), and psychophysical variables (pressure pain and thermal pain thresholds) were assessed. Spearman rho correlation coefficients were used to reveal the correlations between pain extent and other outcomes. Differences in pain extent according to severity (minimal, moderate, severe) or laterality (unilateral, bilateral) and the presence of extramedian symptoms were also evaluated. Results. No significant associations were identified between pain extent and clinical, psychological, or psychophysical outcomes. Women with extramedian symptoms (88%) exhibited a larger (P<0.001) pain extent (total: 24.2%613.5%) than women with median symptoms (12%; total: 12.2%66.9%). Pain extent was not significantly different depending on the severity or laterality of the symptoms. Conclusions. Pain extent in the upper extremity was not associated with clinical, psychological, or psychophysical variables and was not related to the severity or laterality of the symptoms in women with CTS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current scoping review aimed to map current literature investigating the relationship between pain extent extracted from pain drawings with clinical, psychological, and psycho-physiological patient-reported outcome measures in people with pain. Electronic databases were searched for cross-sectional cohort studies that collected pain drawings using digital technology or a pen-on-paper approach and assessed for correlations between pain extent and clinical, psychological or psycho-physical outcomes. Data were extracted by two different reviewers. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Mapping of the results included: 1, description of included studies; 2, summary of results; and 3, identification of gaps in the existing literature. Eleven cross-sectional cohort studies were included. The pain disorders considered were heterogeneous, ranging from musculoskeletal to neuropathic conditions, and from localized to generalized pain conditions. All studies included pain and/or pain-related disability as clinical outcomes. Psychological outcomes included depression and anxiety, kinesiophobia and catastrophism. Psycho-physical measures included pressure or thermal pain thresholds. Ten studies were considered of high methodological quality. There was heterogeneity in the associations between pain extent and patient-reported outcome measures depending on the pain condition. This scoping review found that pain extent is associated with patient-reported outcome measures more so in patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain, e.g., neck pain or osteoarthritis, rather than for those with neuropathic pain or headache.

Background Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is often reported as a diffuse pain at the front of the knee during knee-loading activities. A patient’s description of pain location and distribution is commonly drawn on paper by clinicians, which is difficult to quantify, report and compare within and between patients. One way of overcoming these potential limitations is to have the patient draw their pain regions using digital platforms, such as personal computer tablets. Objective To assess the validity of using computer tablets to acquire a patient’s knee pain drawings as compared to paper-based records in patients with PFP. Methods Patients (N = 35) completed knee pain drawings on identical images (size and colour) of the knee as displayed on paper and a computer tablet. Pain area expressed as pixel density, was calculated as a percentage of the total drawable area for paper and digital records. Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson’s correlation coefficients and one-sample tests were used in data analysis. Results No significant difference in pain area was found between the paper and digital records of mapping pain area (p = 0.98), with the mean difference = 0.002% (95% CI [−0.159–0.157%]). A very high agreement in pain area between paper and digital pain drawings (ICC = 0.966 (95% CI [0.93–0.98], F = 28.834, df = 31, p < 0.001). A strong linear correlation (R2 = 0.870) was found for pain area and the limits of agreement show less than ±1% difference between paper and digital drawings. Conclusion Pain drawings as acquired using paper and computer tablet are equivalent in terms of total area of reported knee pain. The advantages of digital recording platforms, such as quantification and reporting of pain area, could be realized in both research and clinical settings.

Background: Clinicians commonly use pain drawings to define the spatial extent and location of a person's pain, but limited research has investigated who should perform the drawing., Objectives: To establish the inter-rater reliability of pain extent and location derived from three sets of pain drawings for people with chronic low back pain: one self-reported and two clinician-reported. Additionally, convergent validity of pain extent was assessed using the same dataset., Design: Repeated-measures cross-sectional study., Method: Fifteen patients with chronic low back pain and a pool of eight clinicians were involved to assess the reliability of pain extent and location extracted by self-report and clinician-reported pain drawings. Inter-rater reliability of pain extent was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland Altman analysis. Convergent validity of pain extent was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. Inter-rater reliability of pain location was assessed using the Jaccard similarity index., Results: The inter-reliability analysis for pain extent, derived from self-reported and clinician-reported pain drawings, revealed ICC scores ranging from 0.39 to 0.51, all with wide confidence intervals. The mean Jaccard similarity indexes computed for pain location ranged from 0.60 to 0.65. Moderate to good correlation was found for pain extent derived by the sets of pain drawings., Conclusions: Inter-rater reliability of pain extent and pain location derived from self-reported and clinician-reported pain drawings is poor in patients with chronic low back pain. The lack of reliability is also confirmed when considering only clinician-reported PDs. The convergent validity analysis of pain extent revealed that the two pain drawing approaches measure a similar construct., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is often reported as a diffuse pain at the front of the knee during knee-loading activities. A patient's description of pain location and distribution is commonly drawn on paper by clinicians, which is difficult to quantify, report and compare within and between patients. One way of overcoming these potential limitations is to have the patient draw their pain regions using digital platforms, such as personal computer tablets. Objective: To assess the validity of using computer tablets to acquire a patient's knee pain drawings as compared to paper-based records in patients with PFP. Methods: Patients (N = 35) completed knee pain drawings on identical images (size and colour) of the knee as displayed on paper and a computer tablet. Pain area expressed as pixel density, was calculated as a percentage of the total drawable area for paper and digital records. Bland-Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson's correlation coefficients and one-sample tests were used in data analysis. Results: No significant difference in pain area was found between the paper and digital records of mapping pain area (p = 0.98), with the mean difference = 0.002% (95% CI [-0.159-0.157%]). A very high agreement in pain area between paper and digital pain drawings (ICC = 0.966 (95% CI [0.93-0.98], F = 28.834, df = 31, p < 0.001). A strong linear correlation (R2 = 0.870) was found for pain area and the limits of agreement show less than ±1% difference between paper and digital drawings. Conclusion: Pain drawings as acquired using paper and computer tablet are equivalent in terms of total area of reported knee pain. The advantages of digital recording platforms, such as quantification and reporting of pain area, could be realized in both research and clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of the given study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing sacroiliac joint (SIJ) distraction arthrodesis to treat SIJ-related pain.Methods: Descriptive prospective multi-center cohort study involving 20 hospitals in Germany. Between January 2011 and June 2012, 171 patients with chronic SIJ pain underwent indirect arthrodesis of the SIJ using a distraction implant. The patients were questioned prior to surgery, 6-weeks, and 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-months postoperatively. Overall patient satisfaction was surveyed along with pain medication intake, the Million Visual Analogue Scale (MVAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and a pain drawing. Bony fusion of the SIJ was evaluated using X-ray and computed tomography (CT).Results: A majority of patients (73%) reported to feel better or much better 24 months post-surgery, 49% of the patients reduced their pain medication intake. The MVAS dropped from 63 to 36%, the ODI improved from 51 to 33%, the SF-MPQ decreased from 50 to 31%, the SF-12 physical component summary rose from 22 to 41%, the mental component summary increased from 40 to 55%, and pain as measured by the VAS decreased from 74 to 37 points (all comparisons p < 0.001). In the follow-up CT scans 31% of the patients showed SIJ fusion.Conclusions: SIJ distraction arthrodesis has shown satisfactory outcomes in patients with SIJ-related pain for all scores reported in the surveys, accompanied by increased functionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of the study were to (1) assess the extent to which interrater reliability of pain drawing location and dispersion scoring methods are similar across pain disciplines in a sample of patients with cancer treatment-induced neuropathic pain ( N = 56); and (2) investigate indicators of validity of the pain drawing in this unique sample. Patients undergoing cancer therapy completed the Brief Pain Inventory Body Map, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Intraclass correlation coefficients among medical and psychology professionals ranged from .93 to 99. Correlations between pain drawing score and symptom burden severity ranged from .29 to 39; correlations between pain drawing score and symptom burden interference ranged from .28 to 34. Patients who endorsed pain in the hands and feet more often described their pain as electric, numb, and shooting than patients without pain in the hands and feet. They also endorsed significantly more descriptors of neuropathic pain. Results suggest a similar understanding among members of a multidisciplinary pain team as to the location and dispersion of pain as represented by patients' pain drawings. In addition, pain drawing scores were related to symptom burden severity and interference and descriptors of neuropathic pain in expected ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pain drawings have been frequently used in the preoperative evaluation of spine patients. For lumbar conditions comprehensive research has established both the reliability and predictive value, but for the cervical spine most of this knowledge is lacking. The aims of this study were to validate pain drawings for the cervical spine, and to investigate the predictive value for treatment outcome of four different evaluation methods. Methods: We carried out a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, comparing cervical disc replacement to fusion for radiculopathy related to degenerative disc disease. A pain drawing together with Neck Disability Index (NDI) was completed preoperatively, after 2 and 5 years. The inter- and intraobserver reliability of four evaluation methods was tested using μ statistics, and its predictive value investigated by correlation to change in NDI. Results: Included were 151 patients, mean age of 47 years, female/male: 78/73. The interobserver reliability was fair for the modified Ransford and Udéen methods, good for the Gatchel method, and very good for the modified Ohnmeiss method. Markings in the shoulder and upper arm region on the pain drawing were positive predictors of outcome after 2 years of follow-up, and markings in the upper arm region remained a positive predictor of outcome even after 5 years of follow-up. Conclusions: Pain drawings were a reliable tool to interpret patients' pain prior to cervical spine surgery and were also to some extent predictive for treatment outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pain drawings ( PD) are frequently used in research to illustrate the pain response to pain provocation tests. However, there is a lack of data on the reliability in defining the extent and location of pain. We investigated the test-retest reliability in reporting an acute painful sensation induced by a pain provocation test using a novel approach for PD acquisition and analysis in healthy volunteers. Methods Forty healthy volunteers participated. Each participant underwent 2 upper limb neurodynamic tests 1 ( ULNT1), once to the point of pain onset ( PO) and once until the point of submaximal pain ( SP). After each ULNT1, participants completed 2 consecutive PD with an interval of 1 minute. Custom software was used to quantify the pain extent and analyze the pain overlap. The test-retest reliability of pain extent was examined using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ( ICC 2,1) and Bland-Altman plots. Pain location reliability was examined using the Jaccard similarity coefficient ( JSC). Results The ICC values for PO and SP were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98), respectively. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (± 1.96 SD) in the Bland-Altman plots were 14 pixels (−1080;1110) for PO, and 145 (−1610;1900) for SP. The median JSCs (Q1;Q3) were 0.73 (0.64;0.80) for PO and 0.76 (0.65;0.79) for SP. Conclusions Pain drawings is a reliable instrument to investigate pain extent and pain location in healthy individuals experiencing an acute painful sensation induced by a pain provocation test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Head and neck pain drawings have been introduced as part of the diagnostic gold standard for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). We aimed to quantify the spatial extent of pain in TMD patients and to analyze its association with further clinical findings. In a cross-sectional study, 90 patients (median age = 38 years; n women = 68) were diagnosed according to the DC/TMD. Intra-articular disorders were either confirmed or rejected by magnetic resonance imaging. The patients shaded all painful areas in a sketch of the left and right side of a face. A grid template was placed over the drawings and each region that contained markings was scored as painful. The correlation between the calculated area and the psychosocial variables (DC/TMD axis II) as well as the influence of pain lateralization were investigated using Spearman correlation, Mann-Whitney-U and chi-square tests. Pain affected all facial areas but concentrated on the regions of the temporomandibular joint and masseter origin. Thirty-nine percent reported purely unilateral pain, which was associated with structural TMJ findings in 77% of cases. Individuals with bilateral pain and those with greater spatial spread of pain had significantly higher scores on all axis II variables, except for functional limitation of the jaw. PERSPECTIVE: Head and neck pain drawings can contribute to a stratification of TMD patients. A greater extent of pain as well as pain bilateralization is associated with higher levels of emotional distress, pain chronicity and somatization, but not with functional impairment. Unilateral reporting of pain is associated with more intra-articular disorders., (Copyright © 2023 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To assess drawings of pain sites and self-reported comorbid pains as a part of the biopsychosocial profiling of tertiary care referral patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain. Methods: A total of 135 consecutive patients referred to tertiary care for TMD pain participated. Patients drew all the sites where they had pain on whole-body pain drawings. Other assessments included self-reported comorbid pains in the head and body regions, the Finnish Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD_FIN Axis II), and additional biopsychosocial and treatment-related variables. Patients were grouped into pain drawing profiles (localized, regional, and widespread) and the associations between these profiles and the biopsychosocial variables were statistically evaluated using Bonferroni adjusted P values and with logistic regression using SAS 9.3. Results: A total of 21% of the patients reported localized TMD pain, 20% reported regional pain (headaches and neckaches), and the majority, 59%, reported widespread pain (local/regional and multiple bodily pain sites). Patients with widespread pain profiles formed a heterogenous group in which 28.2% reported severe and 30.8% reported moderate pain-related disability. The widespread pain patients reported significantly higher levels of depression and somatization, lower levels of general health, more sleep dysfunction, decreased ability to control pain, and greater health care needs compared to patients with localized pain (P < .05). Patients with regional pain profiles reported moderate scores on psychosocial functioning compared to the patients with localized or widespread pain. Conclusion: The majority of tertiary care referral patients with TMD pain reported comorbid pains. Pain drawings were found a useful adjunctive tool for screening and as a part of comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment and treatment planning for patients with TMD pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of this study were to examine the diagnostic accuracy of pain drawing (PD) in determining the level of involvement and to investigate how the quantitative evaluation results of PD using a grid score (GS) correlates with the results of other clinical evaluation measures in diagnosis and assessment of patients with lumber disc herniation (LDH) involving a single nerve root. Thirty-one patients with single level LDH who were diagnosed and conservatively treated by the first author constituted the study population. In order to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PD, the level of involvement as determined by PD was compared to the final diagnosis. In 26 of the 31 patients who could be followed for more than 6 months of conservative treatment, the GS in PD evaluation was compared to the score assessed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system for low back pain (JOA score) and the visual analog scale (VAS) both before and after the treatment. The overall diagnostic accuracy of PD for the determination of the affected level averaged 68.8 %, and the accuracy was higher at the L4/5 and L5/S levels than the L2/3 and L3/4 levels. The average values of VAS and GS significantly decreased and the JOA score significantly improved after the treatment. Moreover, a significant correlation was demonstrated between the scores derived from these three evaluation measures. The present study indicated the potential usefulness of PD in clinical assessment during the treatment course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate the psychometric properties of a standardized assessment of pain drawing with regard to clinical signs of cervical spine nerve root involvement. Design: This cross-sectional study included data collected in a randomized controlled study. Patients: Two hundred and sixteen patients with chronic (≥6 months) whiplash-associated disorders, grade 2 or 3, were included in this study. Methods: The validity, sensitivity, and specificity of a standardized pain drawing assessment for determining nerve root involvement were analyzed, compared to the clinical assessment. In addition, we analyzed the interrater reliability with 50 pain drawings. Results: Agreement was poor between the standardized pain drawing assessment and the clinical assessment (kappa =0.11, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.20). Sensitivity was high (93%), but specificity was low (19%). Interrater reliability was good (kappa =0.64, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.76). Conclusion: The standardized pain drawing assessment of nerve root involvement in chronic whiplash-associated disorders was not in agreement with the clinical assessment. Further research is warranted to optimize the utilization of a pain/discomfort drawing as a supportive instrument for identifying nerve involvement in cervical spinal injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The revival of pain drawings as digital body maps for visualizing pain and discomfort changes the way we understand patients and communicate with them. Data stemming from simple drawings of musculoskeletal pain helped reveal the significance and impact of single versus multi-site pain reports. To achieve the next big step, we will need to go beyond pain site assessment and capture a more complete clinical picture of pain as it unfolds. Recent digital pain mapping studies show hidden patterns of pain expression within these marked pain sites. This mini-review reflects on the knowledge obtained from simple paper pain drawings, touches upon new digital technologies, and discusses how these technologies will allow us to reinvent the way we perceive and discuss pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pain drawings have frequently been used for documentation of pain and a convenient diagnosis tool. Pain drawings were found to be associated with psychological states in chronic patients with low back pain. Few researchers have investigated pain drawings except in low back pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the pain, pain drawings, psychological characteristics, and pain interference in the head, neck-shoulder ( NS), and low-back/lower-limb ( LB- LL) regions among patients with chronic pain. Methods We included a total of 291 patients with new chronic pain (headache, 62; NS pain, 87; LB- LL pain, 142). The pain drawings and scores of 10-cm Visual Analogue Scale ( VAS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ( HADS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale ( PCS), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire ( SF- MPQ), and Pain Disability Assessment Scale ( PDAS) were extracted from medical records. A subset of 60 pain drawings was scored by senior and junior evaluators to assess inter-rater agreement. We investigated the correlation between pain drawings and VAS, HADS, PCS, SF- MPQ, and PDAS in each body region group at the initial visit. Moreover, almost all patients received nonsurgical treatment as a follow-up and were investigated using VAS after treatment. Results The reliability of pain drawings was substantial with an interevaluator reliability in headache, NS, and LB- LL pain. Nonorganic pain drawings were associated with psychological disturbances in NS and LB- LL pain, but not headache. Poor outcomes were associated with nonorganic drawings in LB- LL pain, but not in the case of headache or NS pain. Conclusions Our results suggest that the characteristics of patients with nonorganic drawings differ according to body regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study focused on analyzing the relation between baseline pain drawings and future psychological status for identifying the levels of somatization, distress, and depression in patients. The study was conducted by using the cohort method on 138 patients suffering from recurrent or chronic low back pain (RCLBP). According to the results, abnormal baseline pain drawings are more effective for identifying psychological status of patients.