Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33113241›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2021

Digital manikins to self-report pain on a smartphone: A systematic review of mobile apps.

Syed Mustafa Ali, Wei J Lau, John McBeth, William G Dixon, Sabine N van der Veer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of pain (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Sticky apps, not sticky hands: A systematic review and content synthesis of hand hygiene mobile apps.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Syed Mustafa AliCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Wei J LauManchester Academic Health Science Centre (MAHSC), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
John McBethCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
William G DixonCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sabine N van der VeerCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Versus Arthritis 21755
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic pain is the leading cause of disability. Improving our understanding of pain occurrence and treatment effectiveness requires robust methods to measure pain at scale. Smartphone-based pain manikins are human-shaped figures to self-report location-specific aspects of pain on people's personal mobile devices.

methodsWe searched the main app stores to explore the current state of smartphone-based pain manikins and to formulate recommendations to guide their development in the future.

resultsThe search yielded 3,938 apps. Twenty-eight incorporated a pain manikin and were included in the analysis. For all apps, it was unclear whether they had been tested and had end-user involvement in the development. Pain intensity and quality could be recorded in 28 and 13 apps, respectively, but this was location specific in only 11 and 4. Most manikins had two or more views (n = 21) and enabled users to shade or select body areas to record pain location (n = 17). Seven apps allowed personalising the manikin appearance. Twelve apps calculated at least one metric to summarise manikin reports quantitatively. Twenty-two apps had an archive of historical manikin reports; only eight offered feedback summarising manikin reports over time.

conclusionsSeveral publically available apps incorporated a manikin for pain reporting, but only few enabled recording of location-specific pain aspects, calculating manikin-derived quantitative scores, or generating summary feedback. For smartphone-based manikins to become adopted more widely, future developments should harness manikins' digital nature and include robust validation studies. Involving end users in the development may increase manikins' acceptability as a tool to self-report pain. SIGNIFICANCE: This review identified and characterised 28 smartphone apps that included a pain manikin (i.e. pain drawings) as a novel approach to measure pain in large populations. Only few enabled recording of location-specific pain aspects, calculating quantitative scores based on manikin reports, or generating manikin feedback. For smartphone-based manikins to become adopted more widely, future studies should harness the digital nature of manikins, and establish the measurement properties of manikins. Furthermore, we believe that involving end users in the development process will increase acceptability of manikins as a tool for self-reporting pain.

Indexed as

Chronic PainMobile ApplicationsHumansManikinsSelf ReportSmartphone

Identifiers

PMID33113241
PMCPMC7839759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.