We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
The Reliability and Concurrent Validity of PainMAP Software for Automated Quantification of Pain Drawings on Body Charts of Patients With Low Back Pain.
- Authors
Corrêa, Leticia Amaral; Bittencourt, Juliana Valentim; Ferreira, Arthur de Sá; Reis, Felipe José Jandre dos; Almeida, Renato Santos; Nogueira, Leandro Alberto Calazans
- Abstract
Background: The assessment of painful areas through printed body charts is a simple way for clinicians to identify patients with widespread pain in primary care. However, there is a lack in the literature about a simple and automated method designed to analyze pain drawings in body charts in clinical practice. Purpose: To test the inter‐ and intra‐rater reliabilities and concurrent validity of software (PainMAP) for quantification of pain drawings in patients with low back pain. Methods: Thirty‐eight participants (16 [42.10%] female; mean age 50.24 [11.54] years; mean body mass index 27.90 [5.42] kg/m2; duration of pain of 94.35 [96.11] months) with a current episode of low back pain were recruited from a pool of physiotherapy outpatients. Participants were instructed to shade all their painful areas on a body chart using a red pen. The body charts were digitized by separate raters using smartphone cameras and twice for one rater to analyze the intra‐rater reliability. Both the number of pain sites and the pain area were calculated using ImageJ software (reference method). The PainMAP software used image processing methods to automatically quantify the data from the same digitized body charts. Results: The reliability analyses revealed that PainMAP has excellent inter‐ and intra‐rater reliabilities to quantify the number of pain sites (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]2,1: 0.998 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.996 to 0.999]; ICC2,1: 0.995 [95% CI 0.991 to 0.998]) and the pain area [ICC2,1: 0.998 (95% CI 0.995 to 0.999); ICC2,1: 0.975 (95% CI 0.951 to 0.987)], respectively. The standard error of the measurement was 0.22 (4%) for the number of pain sites and 0.03 cm2 (4%) for the pain area. The Bland‐Altman analyses revealed no substantive differences between the 2 methods for the pain area (mean difference = 0.007 [95% CI −0.053 to 0.067]). Conclusion: PainMAP software is reliable and valid for quantification of the number of pain sites and the pain area in patients with low back pain.
- Subjects
AUTOMATION; COMPUTER software; CONFIDENCE intervals; OUTPATIENT services in hospitals; PHYSICAL therapy; RESEARCH evaluation; STATISTICS; DATA analysis; PAIN measurement; BODY mass index; INTER-observer reliability; RESEARCH methodology evaluation; DISEASE duration; LUMBAR pain; INTRACLASS correlation; MIDDLE age
- Publication
Pain Practice, 2020, Vol 20, Issue 5, p462
- ISSN
1530-7085
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1111/papr.12872