Digital pain drawings are a useful and reliable tool for assessing patients with temporomandibular disorders

The "5Ts" screening tool: Enhancements and threshold values for effective TMD identification

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to enhance the quintessential "five temporomandibular disorder (TMD) symptoms" (5Ts) screener by incorporating frequency options and distinguishing between TMJ and muscle pain. The diagnostic accuracy along with cut-off points for the effective identification of TMDs was also established.

METHODS

Participants, aged ≥18 years, were recruited from a university-based hospital. After completing surveys encompassing demographic data and the enhanced 5Ts (with frequency options [5Ts-F] and differentiation of TMJ/muscle pain [6Ts-F]), protocolized interviews and clinical examinations were performed following DC/TMD. The diagnostic accuracy and best cut-off points were determined with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs).

RESULTS

324 participants were recruited (mean age 30.0 ± 11.4 years). Among these, 86.4% had TMDs. 5Ts exhibited high diagnostic accuracy for detecting all TMDs (AUC = 0.92) with sensitivity/specificity values of 83.9%/88.6%. Both 5Ts-F and 6Ts-F had slightly better accuracy (AUCs = 0.95/0.96), comparable sensitivity, and superior specificity (97.7%) compared to 5Ts. The best cut-off points were 1.5 for 5Ts and 2.5 for 5Ts-F/6Ts-F.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all three TMD screeners presented high diagnostic accuracy, 5Ts-F/6Ts-F had notably improved specificity. 5Ts scores of >1.5 and 5Ts-F/6Ts-F scores of >2.5 are to be applied for screening the presence of TMDs.

Randomized controlled trial of digital therapeutics for temporomandibular disorder: A pilot study

OBJECTIVES

Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a common condition that affects the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and the muscles of the jaw, resulting in pain and dysfunction. TMD is affected by both behavioral and psychological factors. Digital therapeutics (DTx) can exert therapeutic effects by controlling behavioral factors through the delivery of appropriate interventions. Here, we report an open-label randomized control trial to evaluate the efficacy of DTx for TMD.

METHODS

We recruited 40 participants diagnosed with TMD. Participants were randomly divided into an intervention group (DTx use, n = 20) and a control group (n = 20). The intervention group received the usual treatment process for TMD in addition to the use of the DTx. The control group received the usual treatments only. Patients in both groups were followed up for 3-4 weeks, and outcome data were collected and analyzed.

RESULT

The intervention group showed a significant reduction in pain scores as measured by the numerical rating scale (NRS) (p = 0.016). Additionally, the intervention group showed a statistically significant increase in maximal mouth opening compared to the control group (p = 0.0079). However, there were no significant differences in improvement in the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale, Oral Behavior Checklist, and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 between the two groups (p = 0503, = 0.820, and = 0.943, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This RCT reveals DTx potential in TMD, showing pain and mouth opening improvements with conventional treatment. But no significant changes were noted in other outcomes. The findings advocate for more extensive, long-term research to solidify DTx's role in TMD management.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This research underlines DTx potential to improve pain outcomes in TMD therapy, reinforcing its value as a complementary treatment modality.

Reliability of the Pen-on-Paper Pain Drawing Analysis Using Different Scanning Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Pen-on-paper pain drawing are an easily administered self-reported measure that enables patients to report the spatial distribution of their pain. The digitalization of pain drawings has facilitated the extraction of quantitative metrics, such as pain extent and location. This study aimed to assess the reliability of pen-on-paper pain drawing analysis conducted by an automated pain-spot recognition algorithm using various scanning procedures.

METHODS

One hundred pain drawings, completed by patients experiencing somatic pain, were repeatedly scanned using diverse technologies and devices. Seven datasets were created, enabling reliability assessments including inter-device, inter-scanner, inter-mobile, inter-software, intra- and inter-operator. Subsequently, the automated pain-spot recognition algorithm estimated pain extent and location values for each digitized pain drawing. The relative reliability of pain extent analysis was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient, while absolute reliability was evaluated through the standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change. The reliability of pain location analysis was computed using the Jaccard similarity index.

RESULTS

The reliability analysis of pain extent consistently yielded intraclass correlation coefficient values above 0.90 for all scanning procedures, with standard error of measurement ranging from 0.03% to 0.13% and minimum detectable change from 0.08% to 0.38%. The mean Jaccard index scores across all dataset comparisons exceeded 0.90.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of pen-on-paper pain drawings demonstrated excellent reliability, suggesting that the automated pain-spot recognition algorithm is unaffected by scanning procedures. These findings support the algorithm's applicability in both research and clinical practice.

Do metrics derived from self-reported and clinician-reported pain drawings agree for individuals with chronic low back pain?

BACKGROUND

Clinicians commonly use pain drawings to define the spatial extent and location of a person's pain, but limited research has investigated who should perform the drawing.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the inter-rater reliability of pain extent and location derived from three sets of pain drawings for people with chronic low back pain: one self-reported and two clinician-reported. Additionally, convergent validity of pain extent was assessed using the same dataset.

DESIGN

Repeated-measures cross-sectional study.

METHOD

Fifteen patients with chronic low back pain and a pool of eight clinicians were involved to assess the reliability of pain extent and location extracted by self-report and clinician-reported pain drawings. Inter-rater reliability of pain extent was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland Altman analysis. Convergent validity of pain extent was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. Inter-rater reliability of pain location was assessed using the Jaccard similarity index.

RESULTS

The inter-reliability analysis for pain extent, derived from self-reported and clinician-reported pain drawings, revealed ICC scores ranging from 0.39 to 0.51, all with wide confidence intervals. The mean Jaccard similarity indexes computed for pain location ranged from 0.60 to 0.65. Moderate to good correlation was found for pain extent derived by the sets of pain drawings.

CONCLUSIONS

Inter-rater reliability of pain extent and pain location derived from self-reported and clinician-reported pain drawings is poor in patients with chronic low back pain. The lack of reliability is also confirmed when considering only clinician-reported PDs. The convergent validity analysis of pain extent revealed that the two pain drawing approaches measure a similar construct.

Test-retest reliability of pain extent and pain location using a novel pain drawing analysis software application, on patients with shoulder pain

OBJECTIVES

A method of pain assessment is the drawing of pain on a specially designed manikin where the patients color the area representing their pain distribution. In recent years, software applications have been developed for the purpose of digital pain drawing data acquisition and processing. Although such specific software applications have already been released, they have been built with obsolete programming tools. The purpose of the study was to investigate the test - retest reliability of a new pain drawing analysis software, in a sample of patients with shoulder pain.

METHODS

Data collected from 31 subjects with shoulder pain. Participants were asked twice to color their pain distribution in the painting environment of a tablet software application called 'Pain Distribution.'

RESULTS

The reliability of pain extent was found to be good (ICC = 0.80). The Jaccard index for the reliability of pain location was found to be moderate, equal to 42.02 ± 19.13%.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated good reliability of pain extent and moderate reliability of pain location using the new pain distribution analysis application 'Pain Distribution.' This pain drawing software application could be a reliable, inexpensive, and clinically usable solution for assessing the distribution of pain in patients with shoulder pain.

Head and Neck Pain Drawing Area Correlates With Higher Psychosocial Burden But Not With Joint Dysfunction in Temporomandibular Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study

Head and neck pain drawings have been introduced as part of the diagnostic gold standard for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). We aimed to quantify the spatial extent of pain in TMD patients and to analyze its association with further clinical findings. In a cross-sectional study, 90 patients (median age = 38 years; n women = 68) were diagnosed according to the DC/TMD. Intra-articular disorders were either confirmed or rejected by magnetic resonance imaging. The patients shaded all painful areas in a sketch of the left and right side of a face. A grid template was placed over the drawings and each region that contained markings was scored as painful. The correlation between the calculated area and the psychosocial variables (DC/TMD axis II) as well as the influence of pain lateralization were investigated using Spearman correlation, Mann-Whitney-U and chi-square tests. Pain affected all facial areas but concentrated on the regions of the temporomandibular joint and masseter origin. Thirty-nine percent reported purely unilateral pain, which was associated with structural TMJ findings in 77% of cases. Individuals with bilateral pain and those with greater spatial spread of pain had significantly higher scores on all axis II variables, except for functional limitation of the jaw. PERSPECTIVE: Head and neck pain drawings can contribute to a stratification of TMD patients. A greater extent of pain as well as pain bilateralization is associated with higher levels of emotional distress, pain chronicity and somatization, but not with functional impairment. Unilateral reporting of pain is associated with more intra-articular disorders.

The Significance of Pain Drawing as a Screening Tool for Cervicogenic Headache and Associated Symptoms in Chronic Fatigue

Purpose

Patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) present with a broad spectrum of symptoms, including headache. A simple, yet powerful tool – the pain drawing identifies essential aspects such as pain distribution. The aim with this study was to 1) evaluate the significance of pain drawing as a screening tool for cervicogenic headache using a predefined C2 pain pattern, 2) assess whether there was an association between dizziness/imbalance and a C2 pain pattern, and 3) compare subgroups according to the pain drawing with respect to pain characteristics and quality of life.

Patients and Methods

Pain drawings and clinical data from 275 patients investigated for ME/CFS were stratified into: 1) cervicogenic headache as determined by a C2 pain pattern, 2) headache with no C2 pain pattern, and 3) no headache. For inference logistic regression presented with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and Kruskal–Wallis test were applied.

Results

One hundred sixteen participants (42%) were stratified to the group for which the pain drawing corresponded to the C2 pain pattern, thus indicating putative cervicogenic origin of the headache. Dizziness/imbalance was strongly associated with a C2 pain pattern; OR 6.50 ([95% CI 2.42–17.40] p ˂ 0.00), whereas this association was non-significant for patients with headache and no C2 pain pattern. Those demonstrating a C2 pain pattern reported significantly higher pain intensity (p = 0.00) and greater pain extent (p = 0.00) than the other groups, and lower health-related quality of life (p = 0.00) than the group with no headache.

Conclusion

For patients with chronic fatigue who present with a C2 pain pattern (interpreted as cervicogenic headache) the pain drawing seems applicable as a screening tool for signs associated with neuropathic and more severe pain, dizziness and reduced quality of life as detection of these symptoms is essential for targeted treatment.

Pain extent is associated with Central Sensitization Inventory but not widespread pressure pain sensitivity or psychological variables in women with fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between pain extent, as a clinical sign of central sensitization, and clinical, psychological, and pressure sensitivity in women with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).

METHOD

In this study, 126 females with FMS completed demographic (age, gender, body mass index, height, weight), clinical (pain history, and pain intensity at rest and during daily living activities), psychological (depression and anxiety levels), and neurophysiological [pressure pain threshold (PPT)] assessments. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) was also used to collect self-reported symptoms of sensitization. Pain extent and frequency maps were obtained from pain drawings using customized software. After conducting a multivariable correlation analysis to determine the relationships between variables, a stepwise linear regression model analysis was performed to identify variables associated with pain extent.

RESULTS

Pain extent was positively associated with age (r = 0.17), years with pain (r = 0.27), pain during daily life activities (r = 0.27), and CSI (r = 0.42) (all p < 0.05). The stepwise regression analysis revealed that 27.8% of the pain extent was explained by CSI, age, and years with pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that larger pain extent was associated with self-reported outcomes, i.e. CSI, but not neurophysiological outcomes, i.e. PPTs, of sensitization in women with FMS. Older age and a longer history with pain symptoms were also associated with larger pain extent.