ArticleThe journal of pain2026
Rethinking measurement of movement-evoked pain with digital technology.
Article in The journal of pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Movement-evoked pain (MEP) may be a useful metric for phenotyping musculoskeletal pain conditions. However, there is significant disagreement over operationalization, and no studies have assessed stability of MEP over time. Fitbit and Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data were collected from adults with moderate-to-severe chronic pain schedule to receive lumbar/thoracolumbar fusion surgery (N=114). On average, participants provided 323 h of Fitbit data and 74 EMA surveys (84% completion rate). To mimic task-based assessment of MEP using the 6-minute walk test, EMA pain ratings completed within 3 h of walking at a speed ≥70spm for at least 6 min were extracted. Of the full sample, 91 individuals (80%) had any instances of pain ratings following 6-minute activity bouts (Median=6, SD=11). Post-activity pain scores exhibited good within-person consistency (ICC=.76). However, between-person differences in average pain accounted for >70% of the variance in post-activity pain. MEP change scores defined as the difference between post-activity and pre-activity pain scores had poor reliability (ICC =.08). MEP change scores were not associated with average pain or factors related to the uncontrolled nature of digital assessment (e.g., activity amount, time from activity to pain report). However, MEP change scores tended to be lower when the preceding pain rating was elevated (β = -7.96, 95% Credible Interval: -9.28, -6.66), suggesting ceiling effects. Small effects of time of day and prior activity were also observed, which could contaminate MEP assessed in the lab or clinic. Continued development of digital methodologies for assessing MEP is recommended. PERSPECTIVE: Existing movement-evoked pain assessments have limitations. Post-activity pain ratings capture overall disability and day-to-day fluctuations in pain, rather than the relationship between movement and pain. Pre-to-post activity change scores had poor reliability when assessed naturalistically and over time. Digital methodologies capture movement-evoked pain continuously across time, contexts, and real-world environments.
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.