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

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mark Matthews, Michael S. Rathleff, Bill Vicenzino, Shellie A. Boudreau
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: PeerJ Inc. 2018-03-01
Series:PeerJ
Subjects:
Online Access:https://peerj.com/articles/4406.pdf
id doaj-7fa614684e3348afa5dae675d4f50dc2
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7fa614684e3348afa5dae675d4f50dc22020-11-24T22:56:52ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592018-03-016e440610.7717/peerj.4406Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral painMark Matthews0Michael S. Rathleff1Bill Vicenzino2Shellie A. Boudreau3School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Sports Injuries Rehabilitation and Prevention for Health Research Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, AustraliaResearch Unit for General Practice in Aalborg, Aalborg, DenmarkSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Sports Injuries Rehabilitation and Prevention for Health Research Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, AustraliaCenter for Neuroplasticity and Pain, Centre for Sensory Motor Interaction, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, DenmarkBackground 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.https://peerj.com/articles/4406.pdfPain drawingTabletPersonal computer
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mark Matthews
Michael S. Rathleff
Bill Vicenzino
Shellie A. Boudreau
spellingShingle Mark Matthews
Michael S. Rathleff
Bill Vicenzino
Shellie A. Boudreau
Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain
PeerJ
Pain drawing
Tablet
Personal computer
author_facet Mark Matthews
Michael S. Rathleff
Bill Vicenzino
Shellie A. Boudreau
author_sort Mark Matthews
title Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain
title_short Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain
title_full Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain
title_fullStr Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain
title_full_unstemmed Capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain
title_sort capturing patient-reported area of knee pain: a concurrent validity study using digital technology in patients with patellofemoral pain
publisher PeerJ Inc.
series PeerJ
issn 2167-8359
publishDate 2018-03-01
description 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.
topic Pain drawing
Tablet
Personal computer
url https://peerj.com/articles/4406.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT markmatthews capturingpatientreportedareaofkneepainaconcurrentvaliditystudyusingdigitaltechnologyinpatientswithpatellofemoralpain
AT michaelsrathleff capturingpatientreportedareaofkneepainaconcurrentvaliditystudyusingdigitaltechnologyinpatientswithpatellofemoralpain
AT billvicenzino capturingpatientreportedareaofkneepainaconcurrentvaliditystudyusingdigitaltechnologyinpatientswithpatellofemoralpain
AT shellieaboudreau capturingpatientreportedareaofkneepainaconcurrentvaliditystudyusingdigitaltechnologyinpatientswithpatellofemoralpain
_version_ 1725652981771141120