Objectives: To assess the consistency and level of agreement between pain drawings collected on (1) paper and a personal computer tablet; and (2) between a 2-dimensional (2D) line drawing and 3-dimensional (3D) body schema. Materials and Methods: Pain-free participants (N=24) recreated a premarked “pain” area from a 2D line drawing displayed on paper onto paper or tablet, and individuals with chronic neck pain (N=29) expressed their current pain on paper and tablet. A heterogeneous group (N=26) was recruited from cross-disciplinary pain clinic and expressed their pain on a 2D line drawing and a 3D body schema, as displayed on a tablet, and then completed an user-experience questionnaire. Results: Pain drawings showed moderate to high level of consistency and a high level of agreement for paper and tablet and between 2D line drawing and 3D body schema. A fixed bias (−1.0042, P<0.001) revealed that pain areas were drawn slightly smaller on paper than on tablet, and larger on the 2D than the 3D body schema (−0.6371, P=0.003), as recorded on a tablet. Over one-third of individuals with chronic pain preferred and/or believed that the 3D body schema enabled a more accurate record; 12 believed they were equal, and 3 preferred the 2D line drawing. Discussion: Pain drawings recorded with touch-screen technology provide equal reliability to paper but the size of the drawing slightly differs between the platforms. Although, 2D line drawings and 3D body schemas were similar in terms of consistency and reliability, it remains to be confirmed whether 3D body schemas increase the accuracy and precision of pain drawings.

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.

Background: Digital pain mapping allows for remote and ecological momentary assessment in patients over multiple time points spanning days to months. Frequent ecological assessments may reveal tendencies and fluctuations more clearly and provide insights into the trajectory of a patient’s pain. Objective: The primary aim of this study is to remotely map and track the intensity and distribution of pain and discomfort (eg, burning, aching, and tingling) in patients with nonmalignant spinal referred pain over 12 weeks using a web-based app for digital pain mapping. The secondary aim is to explore the barriers of use by determining the differences in clinical and user characteristics between patients with good (regular users) and poor (nonregular users) reporting compliance. Methods: Patients (N=91; n=53 women) with spinal referred pain were recruited using web-based and traditional in-house strategies. Patients were asked to submit weekly digital pain reports for 12 weeks. Each pain report consisted of digital pain drawings on a pseudo–three-dimensional body chart and pain intensity ratings. The pain drawings captured the distribution of pain and discomfort (pain quality descriptors) expressed as the total extent and location. Differences in weekly pain reports were explored using the total extent (pixels), current and usual pain intensity ratings, frequency of quality descriptor selection, and Jaccard similarity index. Validated e-questionnaires were completed at baseline to determine the patients’ characteristics (adapted Danish National Spine Register), disability (Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index), and pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale) profiles. Barriers of use were assessed at 6 weeks using a health care–related usability and acceptance e-questionnaire and a self-developed technology-specific e-questionnaire to assess the accessibility and ease of access of the pain mapping app. Associations between total extent, pain intensity, disability, and catastrophizing were explored to further understand pain. Differences between regular and nonregular users were assessed to understand the pain mapping app reporting compliance. Results: Fluctuations were identified in pain reports for total extent and pain intensity ratings (P<.001). However, quality descriptor selection (P=.99) and pain drawing (P=.49), compared using the Jaccard index, were similar over time. Interestingly, current pain intensity was greater than usual pain intensity (P<.001), suggesting that the timing of pain reporting coincided with a more intense pain experience than usual. Usability and acceptance were similar between regular and nonregular users. Regular users were younger (P<.001) and reported a larger total extent of pain than nonregular users (P<.001). Conclusions: This is the first study to examine digital reports of pain intensity and distribution in patients with nonmalignant spinal referred pain remotely for a sustained period and barriers of use and compliance using a digital pain mapping app. Differences in age, pain distribution, and current pain intensity may influence reporting behavior and compliance.

Detailed pain mapping of extent and distribution in individuals with patellofemoral pain (PFP) within and around a complex structure such as the knee has yet to be explored. Perceptions of on-going pain from adolescents and young adults (N = 35) with long-standing (>10 months) PFP were collected on high-resolution 3D digital body-schema of the knees. Location, area of pain, pain intensity, laterality, worse side of knee pain, symptom duration, and symmetry in bilateral knee pain were recorded. A threshold for naturally occurring variations in symmetrical knee pain drawings were collected from 18 healthy controls and used in combination with the development a symmetry index (0–1) to create a fuzzy rule for classifying symmetrical and non-symmetrical PFP patterns as compared to a PFP expert. The symmetry index was computed and tested using a correlation coefficient alone or in combination with the Jaccard index and the true and false positive rates (TPR and FPR, respectively) determined. The peripatellar region was the common report of pain location however, novel and nonconforming PFP patterns were identified and the majority of individuals (22 of 27) with bilateral PFP expressed highly-symmetric mirror-image pain. Individuals with symptom duration of 5 years or more had a greater area of pain, compared to those with symptoms for less than 5 years. The total area of pain was correlated to symptom duration for those with extended symptoms durations and a progression towards an “O” shaped pattern emerged. A TPR of 100% for identifying symmetrical knee pain patterns was found however the expert PFP tended to be stricter, as reflected in FPR of 20%. A high proportion of PFP patterns or symptoms occur in mirrored locations and are exceptionally symmetrical, and long duration of symptoms appear to converge to an ‘O’ shape. Classifying symmetrical pain patterns is subjective however simple fuzzy rules and correlations can be used to increase objectivity. This study highlights a gap in knowledge of PFP symptom presentation, reveals what may be a natural progression of symptoms, and provides valuable clinical insight for both pain management and treatment.

The patient’s expression of pain using digital-body maps expands analytic opportunities for exploring the spatial variation of bodily pain. A common knee pain condition in adolescents and adults is patellofemoral pain (PFP) and recently PFP was shown to be characterized by a heterogeneous distribution of pain. Whether there are important patterns in these distributions remains unclear. This pioneering study assesses the spatial variation of pain using principal component analysis and a clustering approach. Detailed digital-body maps of knee pain were drawn by 299 PFP patients of mixed sex, age, and pain severity. Three pain distribution patterns emerged resembling an Anchor, Hook, and an Ovate shape on and around the patella. The variations in pain distribution were independent of sex, age, and pain intensity. Bilateral pain associated with a longer duration of pain and the majority characterized by the Hook and Ovate pain distributions. Bilateral and/or symmetrical pain between the left and right knees may represent symptoms associated with longstanding PFP. The distinct patterns of pain location and area suggest specific underlying structures cannot be ruled out as important drivers, although central neuronal mechanisms possibly exemplified by the symmetrical representation of pain may play a role in individuals with longstanding symptoms.