Validation of an Electronic Visual Analog Scale mHealth Tool for Acute Pain Assessment: Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.
mHealth
mobile phone
pain
pain measurement
tablet
validation
visual analog pain scale
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 02 2020
12 02 2020
Historique:
received:
28
02
2019
accepted:
29
11
2019
revised:
30
10
2019
entrez:
13
2
2020
pubmed:
13
2
2020
medline:
23
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Accurate measurement of pain is required to improve its management and in research. The visual analog scale (VAS) on paper format has been shown to be an accurate, valid, reliable, and reproducible way to measure pain intensity. However, some limitations should be considered, some of which can be implemented with the introduction of an electronic VAS version, suitable to be used both in a tablet and a smartphone. This study aimed to validate a new method of recording pain level by comparing the traditional paper VAS with the pain level module on the newly designed Interactive Clinics app. A prospective observational cross-sectional study was designed. The sample consisted of 102 participants aged 18 to 65 years. A Force Dial FDK 20 algometer (Wagner Instruments) was employed to induce mild pressure symptoms on the participants' thumbs. Pain was measured using a paper VAS (10 cm line) and the app. Intermethod reliability estimated by ICC(3,1) was 0.86 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.81 to 0.90, indicating good reliability. Intramethod reliability estimated by ICC The pain level module on the app is highly reliable and interchangeable with the paper VAS version. This tool could potentially help clinicians and researchers precisely assess pain in a simple, economic way with the use of a ubiquitous technology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Accurate measurement of pain is required to improve its management and in research. The visual analog scale (VAS) on paper format has been shown to be an accurate, valid, reliable, and reproducible way to measure pain intensity. However, some limitations should be considered, some of which can be implemented with the introduction of an electronic VAS version, suitable to be used both in a tablet and a smartphone.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to validate a new method of recording pain level by comparing the traditional paper VAS with the pain level module on the newly designed Interactive Clinics app.
METHODS
A prospective observational cross-sectional study was designed. The sample consisted of 102 participants aged 18 to 65 years. A Force Dial FDK 20 algometer (Wagner Instruments) was employed to induce mild pressure symptoms on the participants' thumbs. Pain was measured using a paper VAS (10 cm line) and the app.
RESULTS
Intermethod reliability estimated by ICC(3,1) was 0.86 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.81 to 0.90, indicating good reliability. Intramethod reliability estimated by ICC
CONCLUSIONS
The pain level module on the app is highly reliable and interchangeable with the paper VAS version. This tool could potentially help clinicians and researchers precisely assess pain in a simple, economic way with the use of a ubiquitous technology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32049063
pii: v22i2e13468
doi: 10.2196/13468
pmc: PMC7055746
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13468Informations de copyright
©Carles Escalona-Marfil, Andrea Coda, Jorge Ruiz-Moreno, Lluís Miquel Riu-Gispert, Xavier Gironès. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 12.02.2020.
Références
J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):571-82
pubmed: 17613642
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Mar 26;7(3):e10044
pubmed: 30912756
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Oct;52(10):737-41
pubmed: 9805221
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Oct 24;20(10):e272
pubmed: 30355556
Stat Methods Med Res. 2013 Dec;22(6):630-42
pubmed: 21705434
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Sep;41(9):644-50
pubmed: 21885906
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018 Jan;12(1):199-201
pubmed: 28539086
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Oct 04;5:31
pubmed: 16202149
Appetite. 2009 Apr;52(2):525-7
pubmed: 19061926
BMC Res Notes. 2012 Feb 21;5:113
pubmed: 22353420
Clin Rheumatol. 1987 Dec;6(4):510-7
pubmed: 3449302
Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Apr;10(4):390-2
pubmed: 12670856
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2017 May 16;15(1):40
pubmed: 28511689
Arch Med Res. 2004 Jan-Feb;35(1):43-8
pubmed: 15036799
Res Publ Assoc Res Nerv Ment Dis. 1970;48:272-85
pubmed: 5458837
Neuroimage. 2013 Nov 1;81:283-293
pubmed: 23684861
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Jun;41(6):1073-93
pubmed: 21621130
Genome Med. 2013 Dec 23;5(12):110
pubmed: 24360023
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Oct 25;6(10):e10718
pubmed: 30361196
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 May 29;7(5):e12542
pubmed: 31144672
Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol. 1989 Feb;11(2):123-7
pubmed: 2709918
Pain. 1976 Jun;2(2):175-84
pubmed: 1026900
Pain Pract. 2015 Jul;15(6):538-47
pubmed: 24735056
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Oct 22;6(10):e11231
pubmed: 30348633
Pain. 2011 Oct;152(10):2399-404
pubmed: 21856077
Appetite. 2009 Dec;53(3):465-8
pubmed: 19800378
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jan;68(1):80-6
pubmed: 25441699
Control Clin Trials. 2003 Apr;24(2):182-99
pubmed: 12689739
Pain. 2003 Jul;104(1-2):343-51
pubmed: 12855344
Interact J Med Res. 2016 Jan 14;5(1):e3
pubmed: 26769149
Pain. 2008 Jun;136(3):281-92
pubmed: 17723279
Br J Nutr. 2000 Oct;84(4):405-15
pubmed: 11103211
Arch Med Res. 2004 Mar-Apr;35(2):157-62
pubmed: 15010197
Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Dec;8(12):1153-7
pubmed: 11733293
Man Ther. 2007 May;12(2):192-7
pubmed: 16956783
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51
pubmed: 26110027
Pain. 1986 Jun;25(3):313-23
pubmed: 3748589