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

Abstract

BackgroundClinicians 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. ObjectivesTo 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. DesignRepeated-measures cross-sectional study. MethodFifteen 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. ResultsThe 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. ConclusionsInter-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.