The accuracy of pain drawing in identifying psychological distress in low back pain-systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies

Data-driven identification of distinct pain drawing patterns and their association with clinical and psychological factors: a study of 21,123 patients with spinal pain

ABSTRACT

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.

Pain drawing as a screening tool for anxiety, depression and reduced health-related quality of life in back pain patients: A cohort study

Background

Back pain patients are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and reduced quality of life. Pain drawing is a simple, frequently used anamnesis tool that facilitates communication between physicians and patients. This study analysed pain drawings to examine whether pain drawing is suitable as a screening tool for signs of anxiety, depression or reduced quality of life, as the detection of these symptoms is essential for successful treatment.

Methods

Pain drawings of 219 patients with lower back pain were evaluated retrospectively. Pain drawings are a schematic drawing of a human being. Six variables of the pain drawing were analysed. Subscales of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Short Form 12 (SF-12) were used to measure anxiety, depression and quality of life, respectively. Descriptive statistics, uni- and multivariate linear regression analyses and analysis of variance were performed. Logistic regression analyses were conducted for suitable variables.

Results

We revealed significant positive correlations between the variables "filled body surface" and "number of pain sites" and the anxiety (HADS-A) and depression subscales (HADS-D) of the HADS (p<0.01). The same predictors had significant negative correlations with the MCS (p<0.01). However, the sensitivity and specificity of the variable "number of pain sites" were too low compared to those for existing screening tests to consider it as a screening tool for anxiety, depression and quality of life (HADS-A: sensitivity: 45.2%, specificity: 83.3%; HADS-D: sensitivity: 61.1%, specificity: 51%; MCS: sensitivity: 21.2%, specificity: 85.7%).

Conclusions

There were significant correlations between the amount of filled body surface and the number of pain sites in the pain drawing and anxiety, depression and quality of life. Although useful in routine clinical practice, pain drawing cannot be used as a screening tool based on our results.

Lumbar spondylolisthesis: STATE of the art on assessment and conservative treatment

Introduction

There is weak relationship between the presence of lumbar spondylolisthesis [SPL] and low back pain that is not always associated with instability, either at the involved lumbar segment or at different spinal levels. Therefore patients with lumbar symptomatic SPL can be divided into stable and unstable, based on the level of mobility during flexion and extension movements as general classifications for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Different opinions persist about best treatment (conservative vs. surgical) and among conservative treatments, on the type, dosage, and progression of physical therapy procedures.

Purpose and importance to practice

The aim of this Masterclass is to provide clinicians evidence-based indications for assessment and conservative treatment of SPL, taking into consideration some subgroups related to specific clinical presentations.

Clinical implications

This Masterclass addresses the different phases of the assessment of a patient with SPL, including history, imaging, physical exam, and questionnaires on disability and cognitive-behavioral components. Regarding conservative treatment, self- management approaches and graded supervised training, including therapeutic relationships, information and education, are explained. Primary therapeutic procedures for pain control, recovery of the function and the mobility through therapeutic exercise, passive mobilization and antalgic techniques are suggested. Moreover, some guidance is provided on conservative treatment in specific clinical presentations (lumbar SPL with radiating pain and/or lumbar stenosis, SPL complicated by other factors, and SPL in adolescents) and the number/duration of sessions.

Future research priorities

Some steps to improve the diagnostic-therapeutic approach in SPL are to identify the best cluster of clinical tests, define different lumbar SPL subgroups, and investigate the effects of treatments based on that classification, similarly to the approach already proposed for non-specific LBP.

Colored Pain Drawing as a Clinical Tool in Differentiating Neuropathic Pain from Non-Neuropathic Pain

OBJECTIVES

This is a prospective, blinded, case-control study of patients with chronic pain using body diagrams and colored markers to show the distribution and quality of pain and sensory symptoms (aching, burning, tingling, numbness, and sensitivity to touch) experienced in affected body parts.

METHODS

Two pain physicians, blinded to patients' clinical diagnoses, independently reviewed and classified each colored pain drawing (CPD) for presence of neuropathic pain (NeuP) vs. non-neuropathic pain (NoP). A clinical diagnosis (gold standard) of NeuP was made in 151 of 213 (70.9%) enrolled patients.

RESULTS

CPD assessment at "first glance" by both examiners resulted in correctly categorizing 137 (64.3% by examiner 1) and 156 (73.2% by examiner 2) CPDs. Next, classification of CPDs by both physicians, using predefined criteria of spatial distribution and quality of pain-sensory symptoms, improved concordance to 212 of 213 CPDs (Kappa = 0.99). The diagnostic ability to correctly identify NeuP and NoP by both examiners increased to 171 (80.2%) CPDs, with 80.1% sensitivity and 80.6% specificity (Kappa = 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.44-0.68]). The severity scores for pain and sensory symptoms (burning, tingling, numbness, and sensitivity to touch) on the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire were significantly elevated in NeuP vs. NoP (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates good performance characteristics of CPDs in identifying patients with NeuP through the use of a simple and easy-to-apply classification scheme. We suggest use of CPDs as a bedside screening tool and as a method for phenotypic profiling of patients by the quality and distribution of pain and sensory symptoms.

Digital pain drawings are a useful and reliable tool for assessing patients with temporomandibular disorders

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.

Clinical Significance and Diagnostic Value of Pain Extent Extracted from Pain Drawings: A Scoping Review

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.

From Paper to Digital Applications of the Pain Drawing: Systematic Review of Methodological Milestones

Background

In a pain drawing (PD), the patient shades or marks painful areas on an illustration of the human body. This simple yet powerful tool captures essential aspects of the subjective pain experience, such as localization, intensity, and distribution of pain, and enables the extraction of meaningful information, such as pain area, widespreadness, and segmental pattern. Starting as a simple pen-on-paper tool, PDs are now sophisticated digital health applications paving the way for many new and exciting basic translational and clinical applications.

Objective

Grasping the full potential of digital PDs and laying the groundwork for future medical PD apps requires an understanding of the methodological developments that have shaped our current understanding of uses and design. This review presents methodological milestones in the development of both pen-on-paper and digital PDs, thereby offering insight into future possibilities created by the transition from paper to digital.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search covering PD acquisition, conception of PDs, PD analysis, and PD visualization.

Results

The literature search yielded 435 potentially relevant papers, from which 53 methodological milestones were identified. These milestones include, for example, the grid method to quantify pain area, the pain-frequency maps, and the use of artificial neural networks to facilitate diagnosis.

Conclusions

Digital technologies have had a significant influence on the evolution of PDs, whereas their versatility is leading to ever new applications in the field of medical apps and beyond. In this process, however, there is a clear need for better standardization and a re-evaluation of methodological and technical limitations that no longer apply today.

Patient-reported symptom-mapping in carpal tunnel syndrome

INTRODUCTION

To date, no method has been described or utilized to study the distribution of symptoms in carpal tunnel syndrome. We describe a technique of symptom-mapping that yields a population-based "anatomic profile" of carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

Symptoms were mapped on visual questionnaires depicting the volar hand, wrist, and forearm. Thirty-four hands in 26 patients with isolated carpal tunnel syndrome were included in the study.

RESULTS

Painful symptoms were clearly centered over the carpal tunnel and were reported much less frequently in the digits. Nonpainful sensory disturbances (e.g., numbness, paresthesias) were found to have a much more peripheral and lateral distribution.

DISCUSSION

Our technique serves to establish a population-based "anatomic profile" of carpal tunnel syndrome, assisting with clinical diagnosis and serving as a reference point for the comparison of pretreatment and posttreatment clinical data. Muscle Nerve 59:321-325, 2019.

Pain extent is more strongly associated with disability, psychological factors, and neck muscle function in people with non-traumatic versus traumatic chronic neck pain: a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is presented with a variety of symptoms. Pain drawings are used in the clinical assessment of people with neck pain. Pain extent based upon pain drawings can be associated with different factors. However, the relation between pain extent and function limitations in people with neck pain is unknown.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore the associations between pain extent extracted from pain drawings, and self-reported neck pain related disability, quality of life, depression, self-reported neck function, cervical muscle function, and range of motion in a chronic neck pain population and possible differences depending on the onset of pain being traumatic or not.

DESIGN

Observational cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Primary and secondary healthcare.

POPULATION

People with chronic neck pain (N.=200) of traumatic (N.=120) or non-traumatic (N.=80) origin.

METHODS

Outcome measures: Pain extent, Short Form 36 Health Survey Physical and Mental Component Summary (SF36-PCS/MCS), TAMPA Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Craniocervical Flexion Test (CCFT), Cervical Extension Test (CE), and Cervical Range of Motion (ROM). Correlations were calculated using Spearman or Pearson correlation coefficients. Correlation between pain extent and outcomes were calculated for all participants collectively and then separately for those with a traumatic versus non-traumatic neck pain.

RESULTS

Overall, significant positive correlations were observed between pain extent and NDI (r=0.33; P<0.001), BDI-II (r=0.29; P<0.001), CCFT (r=-0.24; P=0.001) and CE (r=-0.19; P=0.006). No difference was observed in pain extent between patients with traumatic (mean: 7.6±6.7%) and non-traumatic onset (7.4±6.8%). Pain extent correlated moderately with NDI, BDI-II, TSK, CCFT and CE in those with non-traumatic onset, but weakly with NDI, BDI-II, CCFT and CE in those with trauma-induced chronic neck pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain extent is correlated with patient-reported neck function, depression and muscle test performance in people with chronic neck pain. These correlations were strongest in those with non-traumatic neck pain.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

Patients presenting with larger pain areas show poorer psychological and physical function. Pain drawings can therefore indicate a need for addressing these functions in management of a person with chronic neck pain.

Association between pain drawing and psychological factors in musculoskeletal chronic pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

It has been speculated that there is an association between pain area and psychological factors in chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions; however, this relation is not well established.

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between pain distribution and psychological factors in chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We searched the following databases using optimized search strategies: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane. Studies were included if they investigated the relation between pain area using a pain drawing (PD) and psychological factors measured by any consistent available method.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were included. A total of 1301 participants with different musculoskeletal pain conditions, including low back pain, whiplash-associated disorders and fibromyalgia took part in the studies. In three studies, the correlation between pain area and depression was weak (r = 0.15, p = N/A; r = 0.26, p < 0.05; r = 0.25, p = 0.01). Depression seemed to be a risk factor for pain in more body areas in one study (relative risk = 6.09, 95% CI = 1.1-33.5; p < 0.05). The relation between pain area and other psychological factors such as anxiety, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, memory disturbances and concentration difficulties was also reported.

CONCLUSIONS

A definitive answer on the relation of psychological factors and pain area is not available; the findings suggest that only depression might have a weak relation with pain area. Future studies that investigate sensory, psychological, emotional, cognitive and behavioral aspects, and also more accurate methods of PD assessment, are needed.

Pain extent is associated with pain intensity but not with widespread pressure or thermal pain sensitivity in women with fibromyalgia syndrome

Widespread pain is considered a sign of central sensitization in people with chronic pain. Our aim was to examine whether pain extent, assessed from the pain drawing, relates to measures from quantitative sensory testing in fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Thirty women with FMS and no other co-morbid conditions completed pain drawings (dorsal and ventral views) and clinical and related disability questionnaires. Pain extent and pain frequency maps were obtained from the pain drawings using a novel customized software. Pressure pain thresholds were assessed over the 18 tender points considered by the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria for FMS diagnosis and over two additional standardized points. Heat and cold pain thresholds were also assessed on the dorsal aspect of the neck, the dorsal aspect of the wrist, and the tibialis anterior. Spearman's correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between pain extent and quantitative sensory testing outcomes as well as clinical symptoms. Larger extent of pain was associated with a higher pain intensity (dorsal area: r _s = 0.461, P = 0.010; total area: r _s = 0.593, P = 0.001), younger age (ventral area: r _s = -0.544, P = 0.002; total area: r _s = -0.409, P = 0.025), shorter history of pain (ventral area: r _s = -0.367, P = 0.046), and higher cold pain thresholds over the tibialis anterior muscle (r _s = -0.406, P = 0.001). No significant association was observed between pain extent and the remaining outcomes. Pain drawings constitute an easy and accurate approach to quantify widespread pain. Larger pain extent is associated with pain intensity but not with signs of central sensitization in women with FMS.

Hypoalgesic effects of three different manual therapy techniques on cervical spine and psychological interaction: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which psychological factors interact with a particular manual therapy (MT) technique to induce hypoalgesia in healthy subjects.

METHODS

Seventy-five healthy volunteers (36 female, 39 males), were recruited in this double-blind, controlled and parallel study. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive: High velocity low amplitude technique (HVLA), joint mobilization, or Cervical Lateral glide mobilization (CLGM). Pressure pain threshold (PPT) over C7 unilaterally, trapezius muscle and lateral epicondyle bilaterally, were measured prior to single technique MT was applied and immediately after to applied MT. Pain catastrophizing, depression, anxiety and kinesiophobia were evaluated before treatment.

RESULTS

The results indicate that hypoalgesia was observed in all groups after treatment in the neck and elbow region (P < 0.05), but mobilization induces more hypoalgesic effects. Catastrophizing interacted with change over time in PPT, for changes in C7 and in manipulation group.

CONCLUSIONS

All the MT techniques studied produced local and segmental hypoalgesic effects, supporting the results of previous studies studying the individual interventions. Interaction between catastrophizing and HVLA technique suggest that whether catastrophizing level is low or medium, the chance of success is high, but high levels of catastrophizing may result in poor outcome after HVLA intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT02782585.