@Article{info:doi/10.2196/62786,
author="Billot, Maxime
and Ounajim, Amine
and Moens, Maarten
and Goudman, Lisa
and Deneuville, Jean-Philippe
and Roulaud, Manuel
and Nivole, K{\'e}vin
and Many, Mathilde
and Baron, Sandrine
and Lorgeoux, Bertille
and Bouche, B{\'e}n{\'e}dicte
and Lampert, Lucie
and David, Romain
and Rigoard, Philippe",
title="The Added Value of Digital Body Chart Pain Surface Assessment as an Objective Biomarker: Multicohort Study",
journal="J Med Internet Res",
year="2025",
month="Apr",
day="16",
volume="27",
pages="e62786",
keywords="chronic pain; neuropathic pain; mechanical pain; assessment tool; digital body chart; pain assessment; pain treatment; digital tool; quality of life; financial burdens; machine learning; pain management; digital health biomarker; pain typology; neuropathic; nociceptive",
abstract="Background: Although it has been well-documented that pain intensity alone is not sufficient to assess chronic pain, the objective pain surface encapsulated in a digital tool might present a major interest in the objective assessment of pain. Objective: This study aims to determine the potential added value of pain surface measurement by determining the correlation between pain surface and pain intensity in chronic pain patients. Methods: Two databases from observational prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies including patients with chronic pain were used in this research. Pain intensity was assessed by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Pain surface (cm{\texttwosuperior}) and pain typology (neuropathic vs mechanical components) were measured by a specific pain mapping digital tool (PRISMap, Poitiers University Hospital). Patients were asked to draw their pain surface on a computerized tactile interface in a predetermined body (adapted from the patient's BMI). A color code was used to represent pain intensity (very intense, intense, moderate, and low). Simple linear regression was used to assess the proportion of variance in pain surface explained by pain intensity. Results: The final analysis included 637 patients with chronic pain. The percentage of variance of the pain surface explained by pain intensity was 1.24{\%} (R{\texttwosuperior}=0.0124; 95{\%} CI 0.11{\%}-6.3{\%}). In addition, 424 (66.6{\%}) patients used more than 1 intensity or color, among whom 218 (34.2{\%}) used 2 intensities or colors, 155 (24.3{\%}) used 3 intensities or colors, and 51 (8{\%}) used 4 intensities or colors. Conclusions: This study showed that pain intensity and pain surface provide complementary and distinct information that would help to improve pain assessment. Two-thirds of the cohort used 2 or more intensities to describe their pain. Combining pain intensity and pain surface should be strongly considered as a means of improving daily practice assessment of patients with chronic pain in primary and secondary care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02964130; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02964130?term=PREDIBACK{\&}rank=2 ",
issn="1438-8871",
doi="10.2196/62786",
url="https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e62786",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/62786"
}