Billot Maxime, Ounajim Amine, Moens Maarten, Goudman Lisa, Deneuville Jean-Philippe, Roulaud Manuel, Nivole Kévin, Many Mathilde, Baron Sandrine, Lorgeoux Bertille, Bouche Bénédicte, Lampert Lucie, David Romain, Rigoard Philippe
PRISMATICS Lab, CHU de Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Centre de Recherche sur la Cognition et l'Apprentissage, Université de Poitiers; Université François Rabelais de Tours; CNRS, Poitiers, France.
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Apr 16;27:e62786. doi: 10.2196/62786.
Although it has been well-documented that pain intensity alone is not sufficient to assess chronic pain, the objective pain surface encapsulated in a digital tool might present a major interest in the objective assessment of pain.
This study aims to determine the potential added value of pain surface measurement by determining the correlation between pain surface and pain intensity in chronic pain patients.
Two databases from observational prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies including patients with chronic pain were used in this research. Pain intensity was assessed by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Pain surface (cm²) and pain typology (neuropathic vs mechanical components) were measured by a specific pain mapping digital tool (PRISMap, Poitiers University Hospital). Patients were asked to draw their pain surface on a computerized tactile interface in a predetermined body (adapted from the patient's BMI). A color code was used to represent pain intensity (very intense, intense, moderate, and low). Simple linear regression was used to assess the proportion of variance in pain surface explained by pain intensity.
The final analysis included 637 patients with chronic pain. The percentage of variance of the pain surface explained by pain intensity was 1.24% (R²=0.0124; 95% CI 0.11%-6.3%). In addition, 424 (66.6%) patients used more than 1 intensity or color, among whom 218 (34.2%) used 2 intensities or colors, 155 (24.3%) used 3 intensities or colors, and 51 (8%) used 4 intensities or colors.
This study showed that pain intensity and pain surface provide complementary and distinct information that would help to improve pain assessment. Two-thirds of the cohort used 2 or more intensities to describe their pain. Combining pain intensity and pain surface should be strongly considered as a means of improving daily practice assessment of patients with chronic pain in primary and secondary care.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02964130; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02964130?term=PREDIBACK&rank=2.
尽管已有充分文献证明仅疼痛强度不足以评估慢性疼痛，但数字工具中封装的客观疼痛范围可能对疼痛的客观评估具有重要意义。
本研究旨在通过确定慢性疼痛患者疼痛范围与疼痛强度之间的相关性，来确定疼痛范围测量的潜在附加价值。
本研究使用了来自观察性前瞻性和回顾性纵向研究的两个数据库，这些研究纳入了慢性疼痛患者。疼痛强度通过数字疼痛评分量表进行评估。疼痛范围（平方厘米）和疼痛类型（神经性与机械性成分）通过特定的疼痛映射数字工具（PRISMap，普瓦捷大学医院）进行测量。要求患者在计算机化触觉界面上，在预先确定的身体部位（根据患者的BMI进行调整）画出他们的疼痛范围。使用颜色代码来表示疼痛强度（非常强烈、强烈、中度和低度）。采用简单线性回归来评估疼痛强度所解释的疼痛范围方差比例。
最终分析纳入了637例慢性疼痛患者。疼痛强度所解释的疼痛范围方差百分比为1.24%（R² = 0.0124；95%可信区间0.11% - 6.3%）。此外，424例（66.6%）患者使用了不止一种强度或颜色，其中218例（34.2%）使用了两种强度或颜色，155例（24.3%）使用了三种强度或颜色，51例（8%）使用了四种强度或颜色。
本研究表明，疼痛强度和疼痛范围提供了互补且不同的信息，这将有助于改善疼痛评估。三分之二的队列使用两种或更多强度来描述他们的疼痛。在初级和二级护理中，应强烈考虑将疼痛强度和疼痛范围相结合，作为改善慢性疼痛患者日常实践评估的一种方法。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02964130；https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02964130?term=PREDIBACK&rank=2
