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.

Dopaminergic Regulation of Reward System Connectivity Underpins Pain and Emotional Suffering in Migraine

“… 25 , 35 The GeoPain is a 3D-body navigation system to record objective sensory-discriminative information of pain in real-time, which is quantifiable, reproducible, and validated. 36 In addition to pain area and average pain intensity by body region (eg, head), it produces a Pain Area and Intensity Number Summation (PAINS) score by multiplying the pain area (from the 220 cells) by their numerical headache intensity (mild=1 (visual analog scale [VAS]: 1–3), moderate=2 (VAS: 4–7), severe=3 (VAS: 8–10)). We divided this individual PAINS score by 660 (220 * 3) to calculate a percentage estimate of the ictal pain severity.…”

Gait and Axial Spondyloarthritis: Comparative Gait Analysis Study Using Foot-Worn Inertial Sensors

“…Patient-reported pain intensity is commonly measured with the single VAS. However, VAS alone may not capture all features of pain [ 69 , 70 ] and may be not sufficient to assess pain in patients with axSpA [ 71 ]. Finally, additional research is required to determine whether factors other than pain may influence gait in patients with axSpA.…”

Validação de aplicativos no contexto da saúde: revisão integrativa

“…Quanto ao método utilizado nos estudos, percebe-se prevalência do processo de validação por comparação com método previamente validado, com diferentes formas de análises, que se mostrou eficaz, evidenciando a usabilidade e qualidade dessas tecnologias (Bastawrous et al, 2015;Kaciroti et al, 2020;Purves et al, 2019), de modo que, ao comparar uma mHealth em contraste a outros métodos, mostrou-se a preferência pelo uso da tecnologia pela população (Ahmed et al, 2017). Destarte, evidencia-se também o processo de validação por meio da Escala de Usabilidade do Sistema que traz protagonismo ao usuário no processo de validação de modo relevante, como evidenciado (Seeber et al, 2017).…”