Where does it hurt? Stability of recordings of pain location using the McGill Pain Map

Agustin Escalante, Michael J Lichtenstein, Valerie A. Lawrence, Monica Roberson, Helen P Hazuda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the validity and reliability of recordings of pain location among patients with pain from 2 different sources, using the McGill Pain Map (MPM). Methods. Consecutive outpatients from a rheumatology clinic and inpatients recovering from surgical interventions participated in a structured interview during which the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the MPM were administered. After an interval of 3 to 6 weeks for the rheumatology patients and 1 to 2 days for the postoperative patients, a 2nd identical interview was administered. Criterion related validity was examined by testing whether the extent [total number of painful areas (NPA)] and distribution (individual body areas affected) of pain differed significantly between the 2 patient groups and whether, among postoperative patients, the distribution of pain was consistent with the site of surgical incision. Test-retest reliability of the recordings on the MPM was measured by calculating a kappa coefficient for each individual body area on the MPM, and an intraclass correlation coefficient for the NPA. Results. 51 rheumatology and 47 postoperative patients were interviewed. Significant differences in the total NPA (4.1 ± 3.0 vs 11.5 ± 6.2; p < 0.001) and in the distribution of the painful areas were observed between the 2 groups. Among postoperative patients, there was no significant difference in the NPA between the 2 interviews (4.1 ± 3.0 vs 4.3 ± 3.5; p = 0.53), while among rheumatology patients, there was a reduction in the NPA at the second interview (11.5 ± 6.2 vs 9.8 ± 5.3; p = 0.007). Reliability of the recordings of pain location by individual areas averaged 0.50 (range 0.04 to 0.76). The reliability of the NPA was 0.82 for the combined group of patients (0.71 and 0.84, respectively). Conclusion. Recordings of pain location using the MPM are valid and reliable. The MPM is a valuable instrument for studies of the distribution of pain in populations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1788-1793
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Rheumatology
Volume23
Issue number10
StatePublished - 1996

Fingerprint

Pain
Rheumatology
Interviews
Reproducibility of Results
Pain Measurement
Inpatients
Outpatients
Population

Keywords

  • arthritis
  • pain
  • postoperative recovery
  • reproducibility of results

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rheumatology
  • Immunology

Cite this

Where does it hurt? Stability of recordings of pain location using the McGill Pain Map. / Escalante, Agustin; Lichtenstein, Michael J; Lawrence, Valerie A.; Roberson, Monica; Hazuda, Helen P.

In: Journal of Rheumatology, Vol. 23, No. 10, 1996, p. 1788-1793.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Escalante, Agustin ; Lichtenstein, Michael J ; Lawrence, Valerie A. ; Roberson, Monica ; Hazuda, Helen P. / Where does it hurt? Stability of recordings of pain location using the McGill Pain Map. In: Journal of Rheumatology. 1996 ; Vol. 23, No. 10. pp. 1788-1793.
@article{794719d9dafa48209dc832bab2395773,
title = "Where does it hurt? Stability of recordings of pain location using the McGill Pain Map",
abstract = "Objective. To evaluate the validity and reliability of recordings of pain location among patients with pain from 2 different sources, using the McGill Pain Map (MPM). Methods. Consecutive outpatients from a rheumatology clinic and inpatients recovering from surgical interventions participated in a structured interview during which the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the MPM were administered. After an interval of 3 to 6 weeks for the rheumatology patients and 1 to 2 days for the postoperative patients, a 2nd identical interview was administered. Criterion related validity was examined by testing whether the extent [total number of painful areas (NPA)] and distribution (individual body areas affected) of pain differed significantly between the 2 patient groups and whether, among postoperative patients, the distribution of pain was consistent with the site of surgical incision. Test-retest reliability of the recordings on the MPM was measured by calculating a kappa coefficient for each individual body area on the MPM, and an intraclass correlation coefficient for the NPA. Results. 51 rheumatology and 47 postoperative patients were interviewed. Significant differences in the total NPA (4.1 ± 3.0 vs 11.5 ± 6.2; p < 0.001) and in the distribution of the painful areas were observed between the 2 groups. Among postoperative patients, there was no significant difference in the NPA between the 2 interviews (4.1 ± 3.0 vs 4.3 ± 3.5; p = 0.53), while among rheumatology patients, there was a reduction in the NPA at the second interview (11.5 ± 6.2 vs 9.8 ± 5.3; p = 0.007). Reliability of the recordings of pain location by individual areas averaged 0.50 (range 0.04 to 0.76). The reliability of the NPA was 0.82 for the combined group of patients (0.71 and 0.84, respectively). Conclusion. Recordings of pain location using the MPM are valid and reliable. The MPM is a valuable instrument for studies of the distribution of pain in populations.",
keywords = "arthritis, pain, postoperative recovery, reproducibility of results",
author = "Agustin Escalante and Lichtenstein, {Michael J} and Lawrence, {Valerie A.} and Monica Roberson and Hazuda, {Helen P}",
year = "1996",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "1788--1793",
journal = "Journal of Rheumatology",
issn = "0315-162X",
publisher = "Journal of Rheumatology",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Where does it hurt? Stability of recordings of pain location using the McGill Pain Map

AU - Escalante, Agustin

AU - Lichtenstein, Michael J

AU - Lawrence, Valerie A.

AU - Roberson, Monica

AU - Hazuda, Helen P

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - Objective. To evaluate the validity and reliability of recordings of pain location among patients with pain from 2 different sources, using the McGill Pain Map (MPM). Methods. Consecutive outpatients from a rheumatology clinic and inpatients recovering from surgical interventions participated in a structured interview during which the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the MPM were administered. After an interval of 3 to 6 weeks for the rheumatology patients and 1 to 2 days for the postoperative patients, a 2nd identical interview was administered. Criterion related validity was examined by testing whether the extent [total number of painful areas (NPA)] and distribution (individual body areas affected) of pain differed significantly between the 2 patient groups and whether, among postoperative patients, the distribution of pain was consistent with the site of surgical incision. Test-retest reliability of the recordings on the MPM was measured by calculating a kappa coefficient for each individual body area on the MPM, and an intraclass correlation coefficient for the NPA. Results. 51 rheumatology and 47 postoperative patients were interviewed. Significant differences in the total NPA (4.1 ± 3.0 vs 11.5 ± 6.2; p < 0.001) and in the distribution of the painful areas were observed between the 2 groups. Among postoperative patients, there was no significant difference in the NPA between the 2 interviews (4.1 ± 3.0 vs 4.3 ± 3.5; p = 0.53), while among rheumatology patients, there was a reduction in the NPA at the second interview (11.5 ± 6.2 vs 9.8 ± 5.3; p = 0.007). Reliability of the recordings of pain location by individual areas averaged 0.50 (range 0.04 to 0.76). The reliability of the NPA was 0.82 for the combined group of patients (0.71 and 0.84, respectively). Conclusion. Recordings of pain location using the MPM are valid and reliable. The MPM is a valuable instrument for studies of the distribution of pain in populations.

AB - Objective. To evaluate the validity and reliability of recordings of pain location among patients with pain from 2 different sources, using the McGill Pain Map (MPM). Methods. Consecutive outpatients from a rheumatology clinic and inpatients recovering from surgical interventions participated in a structured interview during which the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the MPM were administered. After an interval of 3 to 6 weeks for the rheumatology patients and 1 to 2 days for the postoperative patients, a 2nd identical interview was administered. Criterion related validity was examined by testing whether the extent [total number of painful areas (NPA)] and distribution (individual body areas affected) of pain differed significantly between the 2 patient groups and whether, among postoperative patients, the distribution of pain was consistent with the site of surgical incision. Test-retest reliability of the recordings on the MPM was measured by calculating a kappa coefficient for each individual body area on the MPM, and an intraclass correlation coefficient for the NPA. Results. 51 rheumatology and 47 postoperative patients were interviewed. Significant differences in the total NPA (4.1 ± 3.0 vs 11.5 ± 6.2; p < 0.001) and in the distribution of the painful areas were observed between the 2 groups. Among postoperative patients, there was no significant difference in the NPA between the 2 interviews (4.1 ± 3.0 vs 4.3 ± 3.5; p = 0.53), while among rheumatology patients, there was a reduction in the NPA at the second interview (11.5 ± 6.2 vs 9.8 ± 5.3; p = 0.007). Reliability of the recordings of pain location by individual areas averaged 0.50 (range 0.04 to 0.76). The reliability of the NPA was 0.82 for the combined group of patients (0.71 and 0.84, respectively). Conclusion. Recordings of pain location using the MPM are valid and reliable. The MPM is a valuable instrument for studies of the distribution of pain in populations.

KW - arthritis

KW - pain

KW - postoperative recovery

KW - reproducibility of results

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029833352&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029833352&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8895160

AN - SCOPUS:0029833352

VL - 23

SP - 1788

EP - 1793

JO - Journal of Rheumatology

JF - Journal of Rheumatology

SN - 0315-162X

IS - 10

ER -