ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Sex Representation and User Preferences in Pain Drawing Body Charts in Back Pain Research: Multimethod Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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
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
Background: Pain drawing (PD) body charts are widely used in back pain research, but the representation of sex in these charts has not been systematically evaluated. Objective: This study aims to evaluate sex representation in PD body charts used in back pain research, assess the perception of a newly designed sex-neutral body chart, and explore user preferences for sex representation in PD body charts. Methods: We conducted a multimethod study comprising: (1) a scoping review to assess sex representation and the reporting of sex in PD body charts in back pain literature, (2) an expert opinion study where anatomy experts evaluated the perceived sex of extracted body charts, and (3) a survey among a representative sample of UK adults with and without back pain to assess the perception of a newly designed sex-neutral body chart and explore preferences for sex representation in PD body charts. Results: From 349 full-text papers, 108 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most (103/108, 95.4%) did not report the sex of the body charts used, and only 5.6% (6/108) included both male and female charts. Experts showed fair to moderate agreement (Fleiss κ=0.306; Gwet AC1=0.456) in assessing the sex of charts, with most charts assessed as male based on majority ratings (59/108, 54.6%) and classified as male-biased relative to the sex distribution of study participants (76/108, 67.7%). The newly designed sex-neutral body chart was perceived as sex-neutral by 68.5% (204/298) of survey participants across diverse groups. However, perceptions varied by racial group: 73% (181/248) of White participants viewed it as sex-neutral, compared to 42.5% (17/40) of participants from smaller racial groups (χ²2=15.9; P=.001). Female participants slightly preferred female charts (85/154, 55.2%); male participants preferred sex-neutral ones (88/144, 61.1%). Nonetheless, most female participants (82/154, 53.3%) and male participants (107/144, 74.3%) considered the option to choose between male, female, and sex-neutral chart versions unimportant. Conclusions: Our study reveals reporting gaps and a predominant male bias in the representation of sex in PD body charts used in back pain research. The newly developed sex-neutral body chart was widely perceived as sex-neutral, offering a promising step toward more inclusive pain assessment. However, variations in perception across racial groups highlight the need for cultural considerations in design. These findings underscore the potential of sex-neutral and culturally sensitive body charts to enhance the inclusivity and equity of back pain research and clinical practice.
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.