Dataset Information

Sensory-Discriminative Three-Dimensional Body Pain Mobile App Measures Versus Traditional Pain Measurement With a Visual Analog Scale: Validation Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To quantify pain severity in patients and the efficacy treatments, researchers and clinicians apply tools such as the traditional visual analog scale (VAS) that leads to inaccurate interpretation of the main sensory pain. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to validate the pain measurements of a neuroscience-based 3D body pain mobile app called GeoPain. METHODS:Patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) were assessed using GeoPain measures in comparison to VAS and positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS), pain and mood scales, respectively. Principal component analysis (PCA), scatter score analysis, Pearson methods, and effect size were used to determine the correlation between GeoPain and VAS measures. RESULTS:The PCA resulted in two main orthogonal components: first principal component (PC1) and second principal component (PC2). PC1 comprises a combination score of all GeoPain measures, which had a high internal consistency and clustered together in TMD pain. PC2 included VAS and PANAS. All loading coefficients for GeoPain measures in PC1 were above 0.70, with low loadings for VAS and PANAS. Meanwhile, PC2 was dominated by a VAS and PANAS coefficient >0.4. Repeated measure analysis revealed a strong correlation between the VAS and mood scores from PANAS over time, which might be related to the subjectivity of the VAS measure, whereas sensory-discriminative GeoPain measures, not VAS, demonstrated an association between chronicity and TMD pain in locations spread away from the most commonly reported area or pain epicenter (P=.01). Analysis using VAS did not detect an association at baseline between TMD and chronic pain. The long-term reliability (lag >1 day) was consistently high for the pain area and intensity number summation (PAINS) with lag autocorrelations averaging between 0.7 and 0.8, and greater than the autocorrelations for VAS averaging between 0.3 and 0.6. The combination of higher reliability for PAINS and its objectivity, displayed by the lack of association with PANAS as compared with VAS, indicated that PAINS has better sensitivity and reliability for measuring treatment effect over time for sensory-discriminative pain. The effect sizes for PAINS were larger than those for VAS, consequently requiring smaller sample sizes to assess the analgesic efficacy of treatment if PAINS was used versus VAS. The PAINS effect size was 0.51 SD for both facial sides and 0.60 SD for the right side versus 0.35 SD for VAS. Therefore, the sample size required to detect such effect sizes with 80% power would be n=125 per group for VAS, but as low as n=44 per group for PAINS, which is almost a third of the sample size needed by VAS. CONCLUSIONS:GeoPain demonstrates precision and reliability as a 3D mobile interface for measuring and analyzing sensory-discriminative aspects of subregional pain in terms of its severity and response to treatment, without being influenced by mood variations from patients.

SUBMITTER: Kaciroti N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7468641 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sensory-Discriminative Three-Dimensional Body Pain Mobile App Measures Versus Traditional Pain Measurement With a Visual Analog Scale: Validation Study.

Kaciroti Niko N DosSantos Marcos Fabio MF Moura Brenda B Bellile Emily Light EL Nascimento Thiago Dias TD Maslowski Eric E Danciu Theodora E TE Donnell Adam A DaSilva Alexandre F AF

JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20200819 8

<h4>Background</h4>To quantify pain severity in patients and the efficacy treatments, researchers and clinicians apply tools such as the traditional visual analog scale (VAS) that leads to inaccurate interpretation of the main sensory pain.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to validate the pain measurements of a neuroscience-based 3D body pain mobile app called GeoPain.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) were assessed using GeoPain measures in comparison to VAS and pos ...[more]

PMID: 32124732

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundeCohort studies offer an efficient approach for data collection. However, eCohort studies are challenged by volunteer bias and low adherence. We designed an eCohort embedded in the Framingham Heart Study (eFHS) to address these challenges and to compare the digital data to traditional data collection.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate adherence of the eFHS app-based surveys deployed at baseline (time of enrollment in the eCohort) and every 3 months up to 1 year, and to compare baseline digital surveys with surveys collected at the research center.MethodsWe defined adherence rates as the proportion of participants who completed at least one survey at a given 3-month period and computed adherence rates for each 3-month period. To evaluate agreement, we compared several baseline measures obtained in the eFHS app survey to those obtained at the in-person research center exam using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).ResultsAmong the 1948 eFHS participants (mean age 53, SD 9 years; 57% women), we found high adherence to baseline surveys (89%) and a decrease in adherence over time (58% at 3 months, 52% at 6 months, 41% at 9 months, and 40% at 12 months). eFHS participants who returned surveys were more likely to be women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.58, 95% CI 1.18-2.11) and less likely to be smokers (aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.90). Compared to in-person exam data, we observed moderate agreement for baseline app-based surveys of the Physical Activity Index (mean difference 2.27, CCC=0.56), and high agreement for average drinks per week (mean difference 0.54, CCC=0.82) and depressive symptoms scores (mean difference 0.03, CCC=0.77).ConclusionsWe observed that eFHS participants had a high survey return at baseline and each 3-month survey period over the 12 months of follow up. We observed moderate to high agreement between digital and research center measures for several types of surveys, including physical activity, depressive symptoms, and alcohol use. Thus, this digital data collection mechanism is a promising tool to collect data related to cardiovascular disease and its risk factors.

Project description:BackgroundPain is the most common and distressing symptom for patients in all clinical settings. The dearth of health informatics tools to support acute and chronic pain management may be contributing to the chronic pain and opioid abuse crises. The purpose of this study is to qualitatively evaluate the content and functionality of mobile pain management apps.MethodsThe Apple App Store and the Google Play Store were searched to identify pain management apps. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) that apps include a pain diary function allowing users to record pain episodes, (2) are available in either Apple App Store or Google Play Store, and (3) are available in the English language. We excluded apps if they were limited to only specific forms of pain or specific diseases.ResultsA total of 36 apps met the inclusion criteria. Most of the apps served as pain diary tools to record the key characteristics of pain. The pain diary features of the apps were grouped into nine categories: the recordings of pain intensity, pain location, pain quality, pain's impacts on daily life, other features of pain, other related symptoms, medication, patients' habits and basic information, and other miscellaneous functions. The apps displayed various problems in use. The problem of not involving healthcare professionals in app development has not been resolved. Approximately 31% of apps including a pain diary function engaged clinicians in app development. Only 19% involved end-users in development and then only in an ad-hoc way. Only one third of the apps supported the cross-platforms, none of the apps supported clinician access to graphical pain data visualization, none secured HIPAA compliance, and none endorsed the PEG tool for primary care physicians' chronic pain management.ConclusionsMost of the 36 pain management apps demonstrated various problems including user interface and security. Many apps lacked clinician and end-user involvement in app development impacting the clinical utility of these apps. We could not find any pain apps suitable for clinical usage despite high demand from clinicians due to the US opioid crisis.

Project description:Nonspecific low back pain (NLBP) is the diagnosis for individuals with back pain that has no underlying medical cause (eg, tumor, infection, fracture, herniated disc, spinal stenosis). The American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Pain Society (APS) recommend multidisciplinary treatments for NLBP that lasts more than 4 weeks. This approach, however, is impractical for many physicians to implement, and relatively few providers offer NLBP treatment that meets the joint ACP-APS guidelines.This study evaluated the efficacy of a mobile-Web intervention called "FitBack" to help users implement self-tailored strategies to manage and prevent NLBP occurrences.A total of 597 adults were recruited, screened, consented, and assessed online at baseline, at 2 months (T2), and at 4 months (T3). After baseline assessments, participants were randomized into three groups: FitBack intervention, alternative care group that received 8 emails urging participants to link to six Internet resources for NLBP, and control group. The FitBack group also received weekly email reminder prompts for 8 weeks plus emails to do assessments. The control group was only contacted to do assessments.Users of the FitBack program showed greater improvement compared to the control group in every comparison of the critical physical, behavioral, and worksite outcome measures at 4-month follow-up. In addition, users of the FitBack program performed better than the alternative care group on current back pain, behavioral, and worksite outcomes at 4-month follow-up. For example, subjects in the control group were 1.7 times more likely to report current back pain than subjects in the FitBack group; subjects in the alternative care group were 1.6 times more likely to report current back pain at 4-month follow-up. Further, the users of the FitBack program showed greater improvement compared to both the control and alternative care groups at 4-month follow-up on patient activation, constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior, and attitudes toward pain.This research demonstrated that a theoretically based stand-alone mobile-Web intervention that tailors content to users' preferences and interests can be an effective tool in self-management of low back pain. When viewed from the RE-AIM perspective (ie, reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation fidelity, and maintenance), this study supports the notion that there is considerable value in this type of intervention as a potentially cost-effective tool that can reach large numbers of people. The results are promising considering that the FitBack intervention was neither supported by professional caregivers nor integrated within a health promotion campaign, which might have provided additional support for participants. Still, more research is needed on how self-guided mobile-Web interventions will be used over time and to understand factors associated with continuing user engagement.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01950091; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01950091 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6TwZucX77).

Project description:Background:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being increasingly used in orthopedic surgery; however, there is significant variability and burden associated with their administration. The visual analog scale (VAS) for function, strength, and pain may represent a simple and efficient way to measure outcomes, specifically after rotator cuff repair (RCR) surgery. Purpose:To define the efficiency and longitudinal psychometric properties of VAS instruments assessing function, strength, and pain after RCR. Methods:Single-question VAS measures assessing function, strength, and pain as a percentage of normal were administered alongside legacy PROMs in patients undergoing RCR. VAS and PROMs were administered at preoperative, 6- and 12-month time points between June 2017 and April 2018. An electronic registry was used to examine time-to-completion data. PROM performance was assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. Both absolute and relative floor and ceiling effects were examined. Effect size was measured at 6 and 12 months through the calculation of Cohen's d coefficient. Receiver-operating curves with area under the curve calculations were used to determine the ability of preoperative VAS scores in predicting minimally clinically important difference achievement on American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES). Results:A total of 190 patients (55.6 ± 10.9 years, 66.9% male) met criteria. The 3 VAS PROMs required less time to complete than ASES (1.36 ± 1.12 vs. 5.17 ± 2.39) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity v2.0 (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (1.72 ± 1.48). Compared with ASES, VAS function, strength, and pain demonstrated fair correlations preoperatively (r = 0.44-0.46) that improved to good at 6 months (r = 0.61-0.67) and further improved at 1 year (r = 0.62-0.78). The performance of VAS measures with other function PROMs was comparable with performance relative to ASES, with poor to very good correlations preoperatively (r = 0.21-0.62) that improved to good to excellent by 1 year (r = 0.62-0.94). A significant relative ceiling effect was demonstrated by PROMIS UE at 12 months (16.9%). Large effect sizes were demonstrated by the ASES, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Constant, PROMIS UE, and VAS function and strength instruments (Cohen d ? 0.8). Conclusion:Single-question VAS assessments for function, strength, and pain are an efficient means for assessing outcome in RCR surgery and may be particularly useful in the postoperative setting. VAS instruments collectively trended toward floor effects preoperatively, suggesting that legacy instruments may more appropriately establish preoperative baselines. However, in the postoperative setting, VAS instruments demonstrate good-to-excellent correlation, minimized time-to-completion, and no appreciable floor or ceiling effects.

Project description:BackgroundGreater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) possesses a harmful influence on quality of life. Numerous conservative management modalities with varying success have been proposed for patients with GTPS. However, it is not clear which treatment is more effective for reducing pain. The purpose of this Bayesian analysis was to assess the current evidence for the effectiveness of conservative treatments on improving Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scoring of GTPS and to determine the most effective treatment protocol.MethodsA comprehensive study search was performed from inception until July 18, 2022, via the electronic databases PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for potential research. The risk of bias assessment for the included studies was independently performed based on the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Bayesian analysis was conducted by using ADDIS software (v1.16.5). The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used to perform the traditional pairwise meta-analysis.ResultsEight full-text articles with a total of 596 patients with GTPS were included in the analysis. In comparing ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma application (PRP-U) to ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection (CSI-U), patients who received PRP therapy experienced reduced pain as the VAS decreased significantly (MD, -5.21; 95% CI, -6.24 to -3.64). VAS score in group of extracorporeal shockwave treatment (ESWT) was significant improved than that in exercise (EX) group (MD, -3.17; 95% CI, -4.13 to -2.15). There were no statistically significantly different VAS scores between the CSI-U group and the CSI under landmark (CSI-B) group. The treatment efficacy rankings of the different treatments on improving VAS scores showed that the most likely efficacious treatment was PRP-U (99%) followed by ESWT (81%), CIS-U (58%), usual care (48%), CIS-B (54%), and EX (84%).ConclusionBayesian analysis revealed that PRP injection and ESWT are relatively safe and effective in the treatment of GTPS. More multicenter high-quality randomized clinical trials with large sample sizes are still needed in the future to provide further evidence.

Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain is challenging to manage due to multidisciplinary considerations. It has substantial socioeconomic impacts and cannot be simply treated with pharmacotherapy, nonsurgical intervention, or spine surgery. Medical consensus recommends optimizing conservative self-management therapies (eg, home exercise, wellness strategies, yoga, etc) as first-line treatment options for chronic low back pain. However, access to these modalities is often limited and secondary to cost, convenience, and ease of use. Mobile health apps have emerged as a cost-effective and accessible option for chronic low back pain self-management. Established in-person pain programs can provide the structure for an optimal mobile app adaptation. PainNavigator (PainNavigator, Inc) is an example of a mobile app that is based on an Ascension-Illinois group-based pain program-Pain Rehabilitation Outpatient-Camp.ObjectiveThis was a prospective pilot clinical trial that evaluated the PainNavigator platform's utility in low back pain management to inform future trial development.MethodsA total of 75 participants who used PainNavigator were studied. Pain, Enjoyment, and General Activity (PEG-3) scale scores and scores from a brief anxiety and depression scale based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) were obtained at baseline and following program completion. The PEG-3 total score was used, in addition to individual items-Average Pain, Pain Effect on Enjoyment, and Pain Effect on Activity. The PHQ-4 total score was also used, in addition to other individual items, including Felt Depressed, Loss of Interest, Felt Anxious, and Difficult to Control Worry. Paired sample t tests (2-tailed) compared mean differences in scores from before and after participants received the intervention.ResultsThe analysis found that PEG-3 (n=27) and PHQ-4 (n=27) total scores were significantly lower upon the completion of PainNavigator (P<.001 and P=.001, respectively). The findings showed a 36% reduction in PEG-3 total scores, a 40% reduction in pain intensity, and a 40% reduction in PHQ-4 total scores. Scores for individual PEG-3 scale and PHQ-4 items also significantly decreased. All PEG-3 measures had large effect sizes. The PHQ-4 total score and Difficult to Control Worry item had large effect sizes, while the other three measures had medium effect sizes.ConclusionsThese findings show that PainNavigator has clinical significance in managing chronic low back pain and can be easily utilized to improve patient care. All PEG-3 scale and PHQ-4 measures significantly improved following the use of the platform, supporting the multidimensional, biopsychosocial approach to low back pain management. Differences in effect sizes may inform quality improvement investigations, such as optimizing features that impact measures with only medium effect sizes. This feasibility study demonstrates an effective protocol, and it will inform future, more extensive randomized controlled trials.

Dataset Information

Sensory-Discriminative Three-Dimensional Body Pain Mobile App Measures Versus Traditional Pain Measurement With a Visual Analog Scale: Validation Study.

Publications

Sensory-Discriminative Three-Dimensional Body Pain Mobile App Measures Versus Traditional Pain Measurement With a Visual Analog Scale: Validation Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets