2D vs. 3D pain visualization: User preferences in a spinal cord injury cohort

This is the post-print version of the Article. The official published version can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2011 Springer VerlagResearch on pain experienced after Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) has revealed that not only are there several types of pain present in the same individual with this kind of trauma, but also that people who suffer such an injury can describe the characteristics of the same type of pain in different ways. Making it possible, therefore, to more precisely describe pain experience could prove to be vital for an increased quality of life. Accordingly, fifteen individuals with pain after SCI were asked to describe their pain experience using a 3 Dimensional (3D) model of the human body that could be used as an aid in communicating their pain. The results of this study suggest that the consensus of the participants approved the ability of the 3D model to more accurately describe their pain, an encouraging outcome towards the use of 3D technology in support of post SCI pain rehabilitation

A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain

Background and purpose - Outcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set. Patients and methods - An international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions. Results - Patient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on preexisting tools. Interpretation - The outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient's entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver