Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain

Mark Matthews, Michael Rathleff, Bill Vicenzino, Shellie Boudreau

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is often reported as a diffuse pain at the front of the knee during knee-loading activities. A patient’s description of pain location and distribution is commonly drawn on paper by clinicians, which is difficult to quantify, report and compare within and between patients. One way of overcoming these potential limitations is to have the patient draw their pain regions using digital platforms, such as personal computer tablets. Objective To assess the validity of using computer tablets to acquire a patient’s knee pain drawings as compared to paper-based records in patients with PFP. Methods Patients (N = 35) completed knee pain drawings on identical images (size and colour) of the knee as displayed on paper and a computer tablet. Pain area expressed as pixel density, was calculated as a percentage of the total drawable area for paper and digital records. Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson’s correlation coefficients and one-sample tests were used in data analysis. Results No significant difference in pain area was found between the paper and digital records of mapping pain area (p = 0.98), with the mean difference = 0.002% (95% CI [−0.159–0.157%]). A very high agreement in pain area between paper and digital pain drawings (ICC = 0.966 (95% CI [0.93–0.98], F = 28.834, df = 31, p < 0.001). A strong linear correlation (R2 = 0.870) was found for pain area and the limits of agreement show less than ±1% difference between paper and digital drawings. Conclusion Pain drawings as acquired using paper and computer tablet are equivalent in terms of total area of reported knee pain. The advantages of digital recording platforms, such as quantification and reporting of pain area, could be realized in both research and clinical settings.
LanguageEnglish
JournalPeerJ
Volume8
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Mar 2018

Fingerprint

Knee
Cohort Studies
Technology
Pain
Handheld Computers
Microcomputers
Tablets
Color

Keywords

  • Pain drawring
  • personal computer
  • tablet

Cite this

@article{67547ec92ba545c4a22f011564fb8a73,
title = "Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain",
abstract = "Background Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is often reported as a diffuse pain at the front of the knee during knee-loading activities. A patient’s description of pain location and distribution is commonly drawn on paper by clinicians, which is difficult to quantify, report and compare within and between patients. One way of overcoming these potential limitations is to have the patient draw their pain regions using digital platforms, such as personal computer tablets. Objective To assess the validity of using computer tablets to acquire a patient’s knee pain drawings as compared to paper-based records in patients with PFP. Methods Patients (N = 35) completed knee pain drawings on identical images (size and colour) of the knee as displayed on paper and a computer tablet. Pain area expressed as pixel density, was calculated as a percentage of the total drawable area for paper and digital records. Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson’s correlation coefficients and one-sample tests were used in data analysis. Results No significant difference in pain area was found between the paper and digital records of mapping pain area (p = 0.98), with the mean difference = 0.002{\%} (95{\%} CI [−0.159–0.157{\%}]). A very high agreement in pain area between paper and digital pain drawings (ICC = 0.966 (95{\%} CI [0.93–0.98], F = 28.834, df = 31, p < 0.001). A strong linear correlation (R2 = 0.870) was found for pain area and the limits of agreement show less than ±1{\%} difference between paper and digital drawings. Conclusion Pain drawings as acquired using paper and computer tablet are equivalent in terms of total area of reported knee pain. The advantages of digital recording platforms, such as quantification and reporting of pain area, could be realized in both research and clinical settings.",
keywords = "Pain drawring, personal computer, tablet",
author = "Mark Matthews and Michael Rathleff and Bill Vicenzino and Shellie Boudreau",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "8",
doi = "10.7717/peerj.4406",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "PeerJ",
issn = "2167-8359",
number = "6",

}

Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain. / Matthews, Mark; Rathleff, Michael; Vicenzino, Bill; Boudreau, Shellie.

In: PeerJ, Vol. 8, No. 6, 08.03.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain

AU - Matthews, Mark

AU - Rathleff, Michael

AU - Vicenzino, Bill

AU - Boudreau, Shellie

PY - 2018/3/8

Y1 - 2018/3/8

N2 - Background Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is often reported as a diffuse pain at the front of the knee during knee-loading activities. A patient’s description of pain location and distribution is commonly drawn on paper by clinicians, which is difficult to quantify, report and compare within and between patients. One way of overcoming these potential limitations is to have the patient draw their pain regions using digital platforms, such as personal computer tablets. Objective To assess the validity of using computer tablets to acquire a patient’s knee pain drawings as compared to paper-based records in patients with PFP. Methods Patients (N = 35) completed knee pain drawings on identical images (size and colour) of the knee as displayed on paper and a computer tablet. Pain area expressed as pixel density, was calculated as a percentage of the total drawable area for paper and digital records. Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson’s correlation coefficients and one-sample tests were used in data analysis. Results No significant difference in pain area was found between the paper and digital records of mapping pain area (p = 0.98), with the mean difference = 0.002% (95% CI [−0.159–0.157%]). A very high agreement in pain area between paper and digital pain drawings (ICC = 0.966 (95% CI [0.93–0.98], F = 28.834, df = 31, p < 0.001). A strong linear correlation (R2 = 0.870) was found for pain area and the limits of agreement show less than ±1% difference between paper and digital drawings. Conclusion Pain drawings as acquired using paper and computer tablet are equivalent in terms of total area of reported knee pain. The advantages of digital recording platforms, such as quantification and reporting of pain area, could be realized in both research and clinical settings.

AB - Background Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is often reported as a diffuse pain at the front of the knee during knee-loading activities. A patient’s description of pain location and distribution is commonly drawn on paper by clinicians, which is difficult to quantify, report and compare within and between patients. One way of overcoming these potential limitations is to have the patient draw their pain regions using digital platforms, such as personal computer tablets. Objective To assess the validity of using computer tablets to acquire a patient’s knee pain drawings as compared to paper-based records in patients with PFP. Methods Patients (N = 35) completed knee pain drawings on identical images (size and colour) of the knee as displayed on paper and a computer tablet. Pain area expressed as pixel density, was calculated as a percentage of the total drawable area for paper and digital records. Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson’s correlation coefficients and one-sample tests were used in data analysis. Results No significant difference in pain area was found between the paper and digital records of mapping pain area (p = 0.98), with the mean difference = 0.002% (95% CI [−0.159–0.157%]). A very high agreement in pain area between paper and digital pain drawings (ICC = 0.966 (95% CI [0.93–0.98], F = 28.834, df = 31, p < 0.001). A strong linear correlation (R2 = 0.870) was found for pain area and the limits of agreement show less than ±1% difference between paper and digital drawings. Conclusion Pain drawings as acquired using paper and computer tablet are equivalent in terms of total area of reported knee pain. The advantages of digital recording platforms, such as quantification and reporting of pain area, could be realized in both research and clinical settings.

KW - Pain drawring

KW - personal computer

KW - tablet

U2 - 10.7717/peerj.4406

DO - 10.7717/peerj.4406

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - PeerJ

T2 - PeerJ

JF - PeerJ

SN - 2167-8359

IS - 6

ER -