Date: Monday, November 6, 2017
Session Type: ACR Concurrent Abstract Session
Session Time: 4:30PM-6:00PM
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.
Patients (n = 68; Mage = 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.
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).
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)
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 October 16, 2021.
« Back to 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting
ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/validation-of-an-electronic-version-of-the-michigan-body-map/