Test-retest reliability of pain location using three different body...
6
Test-retest reliability of pain location using three different body chart grids A study on healthy volunteers May 4, 2015 – WCPT Congress in Singapore Leoni Diego Pt, MSc, OMT Cescon Corrado, Heitz Carolin, Capra Gianpiero, Clijsen Ron, Egloff Michele, Barbero Marco Correspondence: [email protected]
Transcript of Test-retest reliability of pain location using three different body...
DEASS / Pain drawing and pain location reliability
Test-retest reliability of pain location using three different body chart grids A study on healthy volunteers
May 4, 2015 – WCPT Congress in Singapore
Leoni Diego Pt, MSc, OMT Cescon Corrado, Heitz Carolin, Capra Gianpiero, Clijsen Ron, Egloff Michele, Barbero Marco Correspondence: [email protected]
DEASS / Pain drawing and pain location reliability
Backgound: pain drawing in research
May 4, 2015 – WCPT Congress in Singapore
40 (27 women, 13 men)
ULNT1 (Butler 2000)
Participants Pain provocation test PD1 and PD2
Two digital pain drawings
‘Does the use of different grids for pain drawing analysis influence the test-retest reliability of pain location?’
(Wolf and Groen 2007) (Splipman et al 2005) (Travell and Simon 1998) (Barbero et al 2011)
DEASS / Pain drawing and pain location reliability
PD1 PD2
PD1 only 492 pxl PD2 only 873 pxl PD1∩ PD2 12630 pxl
JSC = 12630/12630+492+873 = 0.90
Overlap analysis with the Jaccard Similarity Coefficient (JSC)
May 4, 2015 – WCPT Congress in Singapore
(Jaccard 1908, Barbero et al 2015)
DEASS / Pain drawing and pain location reliability
Three body chart grids (G1, G2, G3) for pain location detection
G1 G3
G2
205.000 pixels 90 small-anatomic regions 17 macro-anatomic regions (Margolis et al 1986)
May 4, 2015 – WCPT Congress in Singapore
DEASS / Pain drawing and pain location reliability
Automatic overlap analysis: JSC results based on three grids
JSC = 0.39 JSC = 0.86 JSC = 1.00
May 4, 2015 – WCPT Congress in Singapore
(Barbero et al 2015)
G1 G3
G2
Median JSC (min ; max) Friedman test (G1−G2; G2−G3; G1−G3)"G1 G2 G3 (H0: δ = 0)
0.73 (0.15 ; 0.88) 0.91 (0.50 ; 1.00) 1.00 (0.50 ; 1.00) p < 0.0167
DEASS / Pain drawing and pain location reliability
The use of different grids influences the test-retest reliability of pain location (PL)
The pixel and the macro-anatomic grids are the more and less sensitive, respectively,
to PL diferences
Despite some difference between PD1 and PD2 the test-retest reliability of PL is high
Choose the most suitable grid based on the aim of the measurement
Conclusions
May 4, 2015 – WCPT Congress in Singapore
Thanks for your ‘5 min’ attention!
