Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2025
The Added Value of Digital Body Chart Pain Surface Assessment as an Objective Biomarker: Multicohort Study.
Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02964130 (A Multicenter Prospective Study on Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Pathway Optimization), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
A Multicenter Prospective Study on Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Pathway Optimization: A Focus on Patient Identification, Chronicization Factors and Outcome Predictors
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping Pain Memory Across Modalities: Distinct Spatial Representations of Recalled Visceral and Somatic Pain.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Multidimensional pain patterns in Parkinson's disease: a longitudinal mobile health study.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Article
- Influence of Pre-Existing Pain on the Body's Response to External Pain Stimuli: Experimental Study.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough 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.
objectiveThis 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.
methodsTwo 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsThis 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.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02964130; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02964130?term=PREDIBACK&rank=2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.