Search

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: 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. 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]

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]