Validation of an Electronic Version of the Michigan Body Map

Chad M. Brummett¹, David Kohns², Rishi Bakshi³, Jenna Goesling⁴, Stephanie Moser¹, Jennifer Pierce⁴, David Williams⁵, Daniel J. Clauw⁵, Afton L. Hassett¹ and Erin Spencer², ¹Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, ²University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, ³Physical Medicine Rehabilitaion, Univeristy of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, ⁴Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, ⁵Chronic Pain & Fatigue Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Meeting: 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 18, 2017

Keywords: Assessment, fibromyalgia and pain

Session Information

Date: Monday, November 6, 2017

Title: Fibromyalgia, Soft Tissue Disorders, Regional and Specific Clinical Pain Syndromes

Session Type: ACR Concurrent Abstract Session

Session Time: 4:30PM-6:00PM

Background/Purpose:

We previously validated the Michigan Body Map (MBM) to accurately assess widespread body pain and as a means of administering the Widespread Pain Index for the 2011 Fibromyalgia Survey Criteria. Given the increased use of electronic platforms for patient reported outcomes, this study aimed to validate an electronic version of the MBM, including a version allowing for the rating of pain in different body zones.

Methods:

Patients (n = 68; M_age = 51.7, SD = 15.1; 57.4% female; 85.3% White) were recruited from a pain clinic. For Aim 1, participants completed the MBM in paper (MBM-P) and electronic (MBM-E) forms in randomized order, as well as completed a structured interview to assess their experience and to verbally affirm pain locations. For Aim 2, participants also completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and a modified version of the MBM assessing pain zone severity. Data were analyzed using StataIC 13.

Results:

There were no differences between MBM-E or MBM-P in preference, ease of completion, ability to show painful areas, or ability to distinguish right and left sides of the body (Figure 1). Of the 2,380 possible regions (35 body areas/participant), 46 (1.9%) body areas on the MBM-P and 38 (1.6%) body areas on the MBM-E were discrepant when compared to verbal report as the gold standard (McNemar’s χ2 = 0.76, p = 0.38). There were no differences in accuracy between the MBM-E and MBM-P in each of the body zones with the exception of a small improvement in accuracy of the back region for the MBM-E (McNemar’s χ2 = 7.36, p = .01). There were no associations between age or comfort using electronic screens and discrepancies on the MBM-P or the MBM-E. Participants did not believe the MBM-E looked different from the MBM-P or have difficulty marking areas of pain on the MBM-E (Table 1). Participants did report some issues with reading or sizing on the MBM-E. For Aim 2, participants indicated they preferred the MBM-E and the MBM-E with pain zones more than the BPI as a way to best describe their pain (Figure 2).

Conclusion:

The present study demonstrates the utility, reliability and construct validity of an electronic version of the MBM. Moreover, the new MBM-E with pain zones allows patients to rate pain intensity and was preferred to the classic 0-10 scales from the BPI to describe their pain.

1. Brummett CM, et al. Pain 2016,157(6)

Disclosure: C. M. Brummett, MDHHS (Sub K Michigan OPEN); NIH-DHHS (P90 AR070600-05 CORT) UM MICHIGAN Genomics Initiative, 2,NIDA (ntralized Pain Opiod Non-Responsiveness RO1 DA03826-05); Neuros Medical, Inc. (research funding only), 2,Peripheral Perineural Dexmedetomidine Patent, 7; D. Kohns, None; R. Bakshi, None; J. Goesling, NIH Project #1K23DA038718-01A1, 2; S. Moser, None; J. Pierce, None; D. Williams, American Pain Society, 6,Pfizer Inc, 6,Community Health Focus, Inc., 5; D. J. Clauw, Abbott Pharmaceuticals, 5,Aptinyx, 5,Cerephex, 5,Daiichi Sankyo, 5,Pfizer Inc, 5,Sammumed, 5,Theravance, 5,Tonix, 5,University of Michigan, 3,Abbott Pharmaceuticals, 6,Astellas, 6,Cerephex, 6,Pfizer Inc, 6,Zynerba, 6; A. L. Hassett, Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals, 6,NIH 1R01NR017096-01A1, 2; E. Spencer, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Brummett CM, Kohns D, Bakshi R, Goesling J, Moser S, Pierce J, Williams D, Clauw DJ, Hassett AL, Spencer E. Validation of an Electronic Version of the Michigan Body Map [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017; 69 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/validation-of-an-electronic-version-of-the-michigan-body-map/. Accessed .

« Back to 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/validation-of-an-electronic-version-of-the-michigan-body-map/