Pain drawing as a screening tool for anxiety, depression and reduced health-related quality of life in back pain patients: A cohort study

Background Back pain patients are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and reduced quality of life. Pain drawing is a simple, frequently used anamnesis tool that facilitates communication between physicians and patients. This study analysed pain drawings to examine whether pain drawing is suitable as a screening tool for signs of anxiety, depression or reduced quality of life, as the detection of these symptoms is essential for successful treatment. Methods Pain drawings of 219 patients with lower back pain were evaluated retrospectively. Pain drawings are a schematic drawing of a human being. Six variables of the pain drawing were analysed. Subscales of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Short Form 12 (SF-12) were used to measure anxiety, depression and quality of life, respectively. Descriptive statistics, uni- and multivariate linear regression analyses and analysis of variance were performed. Logistic regression analyses were conducted for suitable variables. Results We revealed significant positive correlations between the variables "filled body surface" and "number of pain sites" and the anxiety (HADS-A) and depression subscales (HADS-D) of the HADS (p<0.01). The same predictors had significant negative correlations with the MCS (p<0.01). However, the sensitivity and specificity of the variable "number of pain sites" were too low compared to those for existing screening tests to consider it as a screening tool for anxiety, depression and quality of life (HADS-A: sensitivity: 45.2%, specificity: 83.3%; HADS-D: sensitivity: 61.1%, specificity: 51%; MCS: sensitivity: 21.2%, specificity: 85.7%). Conclusions There were significant correlations between the amount of filled body surface and the number of pain sites in the pain drawing and anxiety, depression and quality of life. Although useful in routine clinical practice, pain drawing cannot be used as a screening tool based on our results.

Colored Pain Drawing as a Clinical Tool in Differentiating Neuropathic Pain from Non-Neuropathic Pain

Objectives This is a prospective, blinded, case–control study of patients with chronic pain using body diagrams and colored markers to show the distribution and quality of pain and sensory symptoms (aching, burning, tingling, numbness, and sensitivity to touch) experienced in affected body parts. Methods Two pain physicians, blinded to patients’ clinical diagnoses, independently reviewed and classified each colored pain drawing (CPD) for presence of neuropathic pain (NeuP) vs. non-neuropathic pain (NoP). A clinical diagnosis (gold standard) of NeuP was made in 151 of 213 (70.9%) enrolled patients. Results CPD assessment at “first glance” by both examiners resulted in correctly categorizing 137 (64.3% by examiner 1) and 156 (73.2% by examiner 2) CPDs. Next, classification of CPDs by both physicians, using predefined criteria of spatial distribution and quality of pain-sensory symptoms, improved concordance to 212 of 213 CPDs (Kappa = 0.99). The diagnostic ability to correctly identify NeuP and NoP by both examiners increased to 171 (80.2%) CPDs, with 80.1% sensitivity and 80.6% specificity (Kappa = 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.44–0.68]). The severity scores for pain and sensory symptoms (burning, tingling, numbness, and sensitivity to touch) on the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire were significantly elevated in NeuP vs. NoP (P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions This study demonstrates good performance characteristics of CPDs in identifying patients with NeuP through the use of a simple and easy-to-apply classification scheme. We suggest use of CPDs as a bedside screening tool and as a method for phenotypic profiling of patients by the quality and distribution of pain and sensory symptoms.

Mad Insight

This poem is informed by the relationships between gender, race, chronic pain, hysteria, and the role of dominant discourses in shaping interpretations of bodily and psychic pain. Drawing on my lived experience as a non-binary person with chronic vulvar pain, or vulvodynia, I challenge the psychiatrization of chronic pain and propose hysteria as a potential state of resistance and refusal (Dumaresque, 2019). I weave fog throughout this poem as a metaphor that captures pain, madness, and perception. Fog symbolizes disruption and disorientation; yet, fog also gestures to the potentiality of being displaced from normative insight (Bruce, 2017). I engage William Connolly’s (2010) reading of perception as formed through discipline to think through the silent but subversive waves of knowledge and power that carve the lenses through which we story ourselves and others (Erickson, 2016). As Thomas King (2003) writes, “the truth about stories is that’s all we are” (p. 32). This poem is situated in a reading of madness and hysteria as sites of affective protest (Dumaresque, 2019). I ask, what can be resourced from our becoming un-hinged? This poem contributes to mad knowledge that is intersectional and in-service to disrupting medical and psychiatric violence, whiteness, hetero/cis-governance, and “compulsory able-bodymindedness” (Sheppard, 2018, p. 59).

Sterile water; a novel and promising human experimental muscle pain model

Background Intramuscular injection of hypertonic saline evokes pain with similar characteristics as clinical myalgia and is thus, considered a valid human experimental model. The aim of this study was to investigate if intramuscular injection of sterile water can be used as a human experimental pain model by comparing it with hypertonic and isotonic saline, and to analyze if the effects differ between men and women. Methods This randomized double blind and placebo-controlled study included 15 healthy women and 15 healthy age-matched men (mean (SD) age of 23.6 (2.4) years). The study comprised of three separate sessions, with at least one week of wash out between each session. Sterile water (i.e. the test-substance), hypertonic saline (active control), and isotonic saline (passive control) were injected intramuscularly into one of the masseter muscles in a randomized order. Pain intensity (VAS) was assessed every 15 th s after the injection and pain duration (s) as well as pain drawing area (au) were recorded. Pressure pain thresholds (kPa) were assessed every 5 min after injection during 30 min. Results All substances evoked pain ( P < 0001), but sterile water and hypertonic saline induced pain with higher intensity ( P < 0.001), longer duration ( P < 0.001), and larger pain drawing area ( P < 0.001) than isotonic saline. The pain intensity was higher for hypertonic saline than sterile water 45-165 s after injection ( P < 0.015), but there were no significant differences between them regarding maximum pain intensity, pain duration or pain drawing area. There was no significant difference in PPT values with time or between substances. The pain duration was longer in the men compared to the women for all substances ( P < 0.006), while the pain drawing area was larger in women after injection of hypertonic saline ( P < 0.003), but not after injection of the other substances. No other sex differences were found. Conclusion Injection of sterile water had similar effects as hypertonic saline on pain variables, but no effect on PPT. Hence, the model mimics clinical myalgia and may offer a novel and simpler alternative to hypertonic saline injections.

Computerized quantification of pain drawings

Background and aimsUsing a computer algorithm to quantify pain drawings could be useful, especially when large numbers of drawings need to be assessed. Whilst informal visual assessment of pain drawings can give clinicians a quick impression of the extent of pain and its location, formal quantification of pain drawings by computer for research purposes is not necessarily trivial. The current study compared seven different approaches to quantification in a large sample of clinical spinal pain drawings.MethodsA large number (n = 55,720) of pain drawings were extracted from the SpineData database, a clinical registry of spinal pain patients in the Region of Southern Denmark. Drawings were analyzed both as pixel (raster) and vector based images, with different approaches based on the raw pain drawing, simple encircling polygons, convex-hull encircling polygons and discrete anatomical regions. Data were analyzed using principal component analysis, correlation and linear regression, as well as informal visual inspection of outlier pain drawings.ResultsEighty-one percent of the variance could be explained by the first principal component, which we interpreted as the true score variance, i.e. the variance attributable to differences in pain area between individuals. The second principal component explained 10% of the variance and was loaded differentially by polygon-based methods and non-polygon-based methods. Correlations between the different approaches ranged from 0.66 to 1.00. Some approaches correlated so strongly as to be interchangeable, others tended to bias area estimates significantly. Visual inspection of outlier pain drawing indicated that when the different approaches to quantification yielded different results, characteristic patterns could be identified in the style and patterns of those pain drawings.ConclusionsThe different approaches reflected the same underlying construct (pain area), but could not be relied upon to produce the same area estimates and were affected by the interaction between drawing style and quantification approach. To some extend, the “correct” choice of quantification method is specific to and dictated by the style of each pain drawing. A differentiated approach is required in which the results of quantification and the drawing style are considered in combination. We provide suggestions for such differentiated approaches taking into account the nature of the drawing data (raster vs. vector) and the method of analysis (partly vs completely automated).ImplicationsThe chosen method of quantifying pain drawings in combination with the drawing style of the individual patient, can impact the resulting area estimate to a significant degree. These issues should be considered before undertaking computerized area estimation of pain drawings.

From Paper to Digital Applications of the Pain Drawing: Systematic Review of Methodological Milestones

Background In a pain drawing (PD), the patient shades or marks painful areas on an illustration of the human body. This simple yet powerful tool captures essential aspects of the subjective pain experience, such as localization, intensity, and distribution of pain, and enables the extraction of meaningful information, such as pain area, widespreadness, and segmental pattern. Starting as a simple pen-on-paper tool, PDs are now sophisticated digital health applications paving the way for many new and exciting basic translational and clinical applications. Objective Grasping the full potential of digital PDs and laying the groundwork for future medical PD apps requires an understanding of the methodological developments that have shaped our current understanding of uses and design. This review presents methodological milestones in the development of both pen-on-paper and digital PDs, thereby offering insight into future possibilities created by the transition from paper to digital. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search covering PD acquisition, conception of PDs, PD analysis, and PD visualization. Results The literature search yielded 435 potentially relevant papers, from which 53 methodological milestones were identified. These milestones include, for example, the grid method to quantify pain area, the pain-frequency maps, and the use of artificial neural networks to facilitate diagnosis. Conclusions Digital technologies have had a significant influence on the evolution of PDs, whereas their versatility is leading to ever new applications in the field of medical apps and beyond. In this process, however, there is a clear need for better standardization and a re-evaluation of methodological and technical limitations that no longer apply today.