ABSTRACT
Body maps are commonly used to capture the location of a patient's pain and thus reflect the extent of pain throughout the body. With increasing electronic capture body map information, there is an emerging need for clinic- and research-ready tools capable of visualizing this data on individual and mass scales. Here we propose CHOIRBM, an extensible and modular R package and companion web application built on the grammar of graphics system. CHOIRBM provides functions that simplify the process of analyzing and plotting patient body map data integrated from the CHOIR Body Map (CBM) at both individual patient and large-dataset levels. CHOIRBM is built on the popular R graphics package, ggplot2, which facilitates further development and addition of functionality by the open-source development community as future requirements arise. The CHOIRBM package is distributed under the terms of the MIT license and is available on CRAN. The development version of the package with the latest functions may be installed from GitHub. Example analysis using CHOIRBM demonstrates the functionality of the modular R package and highlights both the clinical and research utility of efficiently producing CBM visualizations.
Subject(s)
Data Analysis , Software , Humans , PainABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Critical for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain is the anatomical distribution of pain. Several body maps allow patients to indicate pain areas on paper; however, each has its limitations. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive body map that can be universally applied across pain conditions, we developed the electronic Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry (CHOIR) self-report body map by performing an environmental scan and assessing existing body maps. METHODS: After initial validation using a Delphi technique, we compared (1) pain location questionnaire responses of 530 participants with chronic pain with (2) their pain endorsements on the CHOIR body map (CBM) graphic. A subset of participants (n = 278) repeated the survey 1 week later to assess test-retest reliability. Finally, we interviewed a patient cohort from a tertiary pain management clinic (n = 28) to identify reasons for endorsement discordances. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient between the total number of body areas endorsed on the survey and those from the body map was 0.86 and improved to 0.93 at follow-up. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the 2 body map graphics separated by 1 week was 0.93. Further examination demonstrated high consistency between the questionnaire and CBM graphic (<10% discordance) in most body areas except for the back and shoulders (≈15-19% discordance). Participants attributed inconsistencies to misinterpretation of body regions and laterality, the latter of which was addressed by modifying the instructions. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the CBM is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the distribution of pain.
