Danielle Southerst1, Maja Stupar, Pierre Côté, Silvano Mior, Paula Stern. 1. Research Associate, UOIT-CMCC Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Toronto, ON, Canada. dsoutherst@cmcc.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the interexaminer reliability of scoring pain distribution using paper and electronic body pain diagrams in patients with acute whiplash-associated disorder and to assess the intermethod reliability of measuring pain distribution and location using paper and electronic diagrams. METHODS: We conducted an interexaminer reliability study on 80 participants recruited from a randomized controlled trial on the conservative management of acute grade I/II whiplash-associated disorder. Participants were assessed for inclusion/exclusion criteria by an experienced clinician. As part of the baseline assessment, participants independently completed paper and electronic pain diagrams. Diagrams were scored independently by 2 examiners using the body region method. Interexaminer and intermethod reliability was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for pain distribution and κ coefficient for pain location. We used Bland-Altman plots to compute limits of agreement. RESULTS: The interexaminer reliability was ICC = 0.925 for paper and ICC = 0.997 for the electronic body pain diagram. The intermethod reliability for measuring pain distribution ranged from ICC = 0.63 to ICC = 0.93. For pain location, the intermethod reliability varied from κ = 0.23 (posterior neck) to κ = 0.90 (right side of the face). CONCLUSIONS: We found good to excellent interexaminer reliability for scoring 2 versions of the body pain diagram. Pain distribution and pain location were reliably and consistently measured on body pain diagrams using paper and electronic methods; therefore, clinicians and researchers may choose either medium when using body pain diagrams.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the interexaminer reliability of scoring pain distribution using paper and electronic body pain diagrams in patients with acute whiplash-associated disorder and to assess the intermethod reliability of measuring pain distribution and location using paper and electronic diagrams. METHODS: We conducted an interexaminer reliability study on 80 participants recruited from a randomized controlled trial on the conservative management of acute grade I/II whiplash-associated disorder. Participants were assessed for inclusion/exclusion criteria by an experienced clinician. As part of the baseline assessment, participants independently completed paper and electronic pain diagrams. Diagrams were scored independently by 2 examiners using the body region method. Interexaminer and intermethod reliability was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for pain distribution and κ coefficient for pain location. We used Bland-Altman plots to compute limits of agreement. RESULTS: The interexaminer reliability was ICC = 0.925 for paper and ICC = 0.997 for the electronic body pain diagram. The intermethod reliability for measuring pain distribution ranged from ICC = 0.63 to ICC = 0.93. For pain location, the intermethod reliability varied from κ = 0.23 (posterior neck) to κ = 0.90 (right side of the face). CONCLUSIONS: We found good to excellent interexaminer reliability for scoring 2 versions of the body pain diagram. Pain distribution and pain location were reliably and consistently measured on body pain diagrams using paper and electronic methods; therefore, clinicians and researchers may choose either medium when using body pain diagrams.
Authors: N Lemeunier; S da Silva-Oolup; K Olesen; H Shearer; L J Carroll; O Brady; E Côté; P Stern; T Tuff; M Suri-Chilana; P Torres; J J Wong; D Sutton; K Murnaghan; P Côté Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Yaadwinder Shergill; Pierre Côté; Heather Shearer; Jessica J Wong; Maja Stupar; Anthony Tibbles; J David Cassidy Journal: J Can Chiropr Assoc Date: 2021-08
Authors: Charles Philip Gabel; Antonio Cuesta-Vargas; Sebastian Barr; Stephanie Winkeljohn Black; Jason W Osborne; Markus Melloh Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Lisa H Trahan; Emily Cox-Martin; Carrie E Johnson; Patrick M Dougherty; Jun Yu; Lei Feng; Christina Cook; Diane M Novy Journal: J Appl Biobehav Res Date: 2017-04-07
Authors: Jan Rosner; Robin Lütolf; Pascal Hostettler; Michael Villiger; Ron Clijsen; Erich Hohenauer; Marco Barbero; Armin Curt; Michèle Hubli Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Ólöf Anna Steingrímsdóttir; Bo Engdahl; Per Hansson; Audun Stubhaug; Christopher Sivert Nielsen Journal: Pain Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 7.926