The Convergent Validity of Pain Drawings and Anatomical Checklists in Individuals with Chronic Pain.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Jeremy Fung, David W Evans, Deborah Falla, Marco Barbero
{"title":"The Convergent Validity of Pain Drawings and Anatomical Checklists in Individuals with Chronic Pain.","authors":"Jeremy Fung, David W Evans, Deborah Falla, Marco Barbero","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The assessment of the spatial characteristics of pain, such as location and extent, is essential in the clinical evaluation of pain syndromes, especially when managing patient's with chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study evaluated the convergent validity of pain drawings (PDs) and anatomical checklists (ACLs) in measuring pain location (PL) and pain extent (PE) in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty volunteers participated, each completing a PD and an ACL in a randomized order following standardized training. PDs were digitized and analyzed using a custom algorithm on a web platform. PL was categorized across 45 anatomical areas. PE was assessed using a region-weighted approach by means of the Margolis rating scale and a pixel-based method. Statistical analyses included Spearman's rho and the Jaccard Index to compare the obtained PD metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A strong correlation was found between a PDs and ACLs for PE (Spearman's rho=0.823), suggesting similar capabilities in quantifying the spatial distribution of pain. However, a significant discrepancy in PL measurements, with a mean Jaccard Index of 0.54, indicated poor agreement between methods.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>These results highlight the non-interchangeability of these instruments for PL identification and underscore the importance of each tool's unique advantages and limitations. The study also highlighted the potential benefits of incorporating innovative pain metrics into current health questionnaires to enhance their clinimetric properties. These findings advocate for continued research with larger and more diverse patient cohorts to further validate PDs and ACLs and to explore additional psychometric properties for pain assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001290","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The assessment of the spatial characteristics of pain, such as location and extent, is essential in the clinical evaluation of pain syndromes, especially when managing patient's with chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study evaluated the convergent validity of pain drawings (PDs) and anatomical checklists (ACLs) in measuring pain location (PL) and pain extent (PE) in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Methods: Twenty volunteers participated, each completing a PD and an ACL in a randomized order following standardized training. PDs were digitized and analyzed using a custom algorithm on a web platform. PL was categorized across 45 anatomical areas. PE was assessed using a region-weighted approach by means of the Margolis rating scale and a pixel-based method. Statistical analyses included Spearman's rho and the Jaccard Index to compare the obtained PD metrics.

Results: A strong correlation was found between a PDs and ACLs for PE (Spearman's rho=0.823), suggesting similar capabilities in quantifying the spatial distribution of pain. However, a significant discrepancy in PL measurements, with a mean Jaccard Index of 0.54, indicated poor agreement between methods.

Discussion: These results highlight the non-interchangeability of these instruments for PL identification and underscore the importance of each tool's unique advantages and limitations. The study also highlighted the potential benefits of incorporating innovative pain metrics into current health questionnaires to enhance their clinimetric properties. These findings advocate for continued research with larger and more diverse patient cohorts to further validate PDs and ACLs and to explore additional psychometric properties for pain assessment.

慢性疼痛患者疼痛图和解剖检查表的趋同效度。
目的:评估疼痛的空间特征,如位置和程度,在疼痛综合征的临床评估中是必不可少的,特别是在治疗慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛患者时。本研究评估了疼痛图(pd)和解剖检查表(acl)在测量慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛患者疼痛位置(PL)和疼痛程度(PE)方面的收敛效度。方法:20名志愿者参加,每个人在标准化训练后按随机顺序完成PD和ACL。在web平台上使用自定义算法对pd进行数字化和分析。PL分为45个解剖区域。采用Margolis评分量表和基于像素的方法,采用区域加权方法对PE进行评估。统计分析包括Spearman's rho和Jaccard Index来比较获得的PD指标。结果:PDs与PE的ACLs之间存在很强的相关性(Spearman’s rho=0.823),表明在量化疼痛空间分布方面具有相似的能力。然而,在PL测量中存在显著差异,平均Jaccard指数为0.54,表明方法之间的一致性较差。讨论:这些结果强调了这些PL识别工具的不可互换性,并强调了每种工具独特优势和局限性的重要性。该研究还强调了将创新的疼痛测量纳入当前健康问卷以增强其临床测量特性的潜在益处。这些发现提倡继续研究更大、更多样化的患者队列,以进一步验证pd和ACLs,并探索疼痛评估的其他心理测量特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信