Limited clinical utility of pain drawing in assessing patients with low back pain

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the use of pain drawing by studying its ability to identify patients with low back pain and abnormal psychological profile. The intraevaluator repeatability of the penalty point method of scoring of pain drawing was also evaluated. METHODS: A total of 331 consecutive patients with low back pain were prospectively recruited. The psychologic profile was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The pain drawings were scored with the penalty point method. The ability of pain drawing to identify patients with significant anxiety and depression was assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. The intraevaluator repeatability was calculated for scoring done at an interval of 1 month using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in the anxiety and depression scores in patients with normal (n = 200) and abnormal (n = 131) pain drawing (anxiety: 9 +/- 4 vs 10.3 +/- 3.7; depression: 8.1 +/- 3.5 vs 8.8 +/- 3.6; P < 0.005). The pain drawing had a low sensitivity for detecting patients with any degree of anxiety (43%) or depression (40%). The positive predictive value of pain drawing for anxiety and depression was 78% and 69%, respectively. The kappa value for intraobserver assessment was 0.6 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Though there are differences in anxiety and depression scores in patients with normal and abnormal pain drawing, the performance characteristics of pain drawing are less than acceptable and therefore limit its use in clinical practice.     

Pain-drawing does not predict the outcome of fusion surgery for chronic low-back pain: a report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study

Despite a widespread use of pain drawing in the selection of patients for surgical and non-surgical treatment, its value as a predictor of outcome is still not well documented. In a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial of surgical and non-surgical treatment for chronic low-back pain (CLBP), two hypotheses were tested: (1). Pain drawing predicts outcome of treatment for CLBP, (2). Pain drawing is associated with psychological characteristics of patients with CLBP. Two hundred and sixty-four patients with severe CLBP of long duration completed pain drawings as part of a battery of questionnaires prior to treatment. They were followed up at 2 years post-treatment, with renewed completion of questionnaires. Outcome was measured in three ways: patient global assessment, change of disability/pain, and work status. The pain drawing was analysed by four different methods. The association between the pain drawings and outcomes was analysed. Personality traits and depressive symptoms were evaluated in the psychological assessment. None of the four methods of interpretation of the pain drawings demonstrated any significant association with outcome, in either the surgical or the non-surgical group. The pain drawing was associated with pre-treatment back pain intensity and depressive symptoms. No predictive value of the pain drawing regarding the outcome of treatment of CLPB was demonstrated. The concept of "organic/non-organic" pain in conjunction with chronic low-back pain is not supported by the results of the present study.     

The use of pain drawings in screening for psychological involvement in complaints of low-back pain

The pain drawings of 54 low-back-pain patients were examined to find out if it is possible to use them as a brief screening test in order to assess the psychological impairment of the patients. We were using the scoring system of Ransford et al, which we slightly changed, and chose as a criterion variable the ERMSS (Erweiterte Revidierte Mehrdimensionale Schmerzskala) of Cziske. This test originates in the McGill Pain Questionnaire of Melzack and Torgerson; its scales describe four dimensions of pain perception: pain intensity, the sensory-discriminative dimension reflecting the somatic aspect of pain; the affective-motivational dimension, and the total number of words, both representing the psychological involvement of a pain patient. A correlation was found between pain drawing score and the sensory-discriminative dimension of pain perception, whereas there was no such correlation between drawing score and the affective dimension. These results indicate that the pain drawing score might not be a sufficiently valid instrument for assessing psychological disturbances in pain patients to allow it to be used for individual diagnosis without hesitation.     

Relationship of pain drawings to invasive tests assessing intervertebral disc pathology

It has been found that the pain patterns in pain drawings are related to the presence of herniated disc identified by myelography. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the pattern of pain in the drawings or the type of pain indicated (aching, burning, numbness, pins and needles, stabbing) was related to the presence of symptomatic disc pathology identified by CT/discography. In a subgroup of patients who underwent myelography, the relationship of the drawings to myelographic findings was also investigated. Pain drawings were completed by 187 patients with low back and/or radicular pain who were undergoing CT/discography. The drawings were scored in two ways, first by the system described by Ransford and secondly by visual inspection. They were classified as being indicative, or not, of disc pathology. The CT/discograms were classified as disrupted, or not, and the pain responses were recorded upon injection of each disc, based on the similarity of the pain provoked to clinical symptoms. Among the 133 patients with discogenic pain confirmed by discography, 110 (82.7%) had pain drawings that were classified as indicative. Among the 45 patients without discogenic pain, 29 (64.4%) had pain drawings classified as non-indicative. Patients with discogenic pain used more symbols indicating burning pain and aching pain than did non-discogenic pain patients. Our results confirmed those reported earlier by Udén, who found a relationship between the pattern of pain in the drawings and myelographic findings. Pain drawings may be helpful in the diagnosis of symptomatic disc pathology. Received: 26 February 1998 Revised: 31 August 1998 Accepted: 26 October 1998     

Sex differences in pain drawing area for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine the association between pain severity and pain drawing area for men and women; (2) determine if sex differences exist in pain severity or pain drawing area; (3) determine the relative influence of pain severity, anatomical location of pain, personality, and psychological coping factors on pain drawing area for men and women. BACKGROUND: Pain drawings have been postulated to assist in clinical decision making regarding classification and treatment of musculoskeletal pain. Prior studies have been ambiguous on this topic, possibly because they have not considered if sex differences exist for pain drawing area. METHODS AND MEASURES: One hundred twenty-six subjects referred to a multidisciplinary chronic pain clinic with chronic musculoskeletal pain were included in this study. Subjects completed a pain drawing, the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ), and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2). Pearson correlations investigated the associations of pain severity and pain drawing area, independent t tests investigated sex differences in pain severity and pain drawing area, and multiple regression investigated factors that influenced pain drawing area. RESULTS: P a in severity w as positively correlated with pain drawing area for men (r = 0.38, P = .003) and women (r = 0.23, P = .052), accounting for approximately 14% and 5% of the total variance, respectively. There was no significant sex difference in pain severity ratings, but women reported a significantly larger area of symptoms on the pain drawings (effect size, 0.61; P = .002). The sex difference in pain drawing area was consistent across different anatomical locations of pain. In women, the final regression model accounted for 39% (P < .001) of the variance in pain drawing area, with anatomical location of pain (beta = .42, P < .001) and hypochondriasis (beta = .31, P = .005) as the only unique predictors in the final model. In men, the regression model accounted for 27% (P = .003) of the variance in pain drawing area, with pain severity (beta = .32, P = .021) and a coping style of ignoring pain (beta = -.32, P = .018) as the only unique predictors in the final model. CONCLUSIONS: Women had larger pain drawing area and this area was significantly associated with anatomical location of pain and hypochondriasis. Men had smaller pain drawing area and this area was associated with pain severity and a coping style of ignoring pain. These findings suggest that clinicians interpreting pain diagram area should consider the sex of the individual.     

The course of pain drawings during a 10-week treatment period in patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain

Background  

Pain drawings are widely used as an assessment of patients' subjective pain in low back pain patients being considered for surgery. Less work has been done on primary health care patients. Moreover, the possible correlation between pain drawing modalities and other pain assessment methods, such as pain score and functional variables needs to be described. Thus, the objectives were to describe the course of pain drawings during treatment in primary health care for low back pain patients.     

Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion

Pain drawings have been used in spine surgery for diagnostic use and psychological evaluation of fusion candidates; they have rarely been used to evaluate pain status after spinal fusion. This study is a 5-year follow-up on a randomised clinical trial assigning patients to posterolateral spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Patients were mailed a pain drawing and questionnaires including questions regarding work, social status, smoking status, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS). Pain drawings were scored using a visual inspection method and a surface-based point scoring and evaluated for the presence of donor site pain. Pain drawings from 109 patients (87% of the initially included patients), 56 men and 53 women, mean age at follow-up 51 years, were analysed. Fifty-three patients had undergone an instrumented fusion and 56 a non-instrumented fusion. Some presence of low back pain was marked by 79% and leg pain by 69%. Sixty-two percent of the pain drawings were classified as "organic" and 38% as "non-organic". There was no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group. DPQ and LBPRS scores were higher in the non-organic group ( P=0.007). Using the point scoring, no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group was seen. The results of the point scoring were found to correlate with the DPQ and LBPRS scores ( P=0.001). Working patients (39%) had significantly better scores than the rest. Ten percent of the patients had donor site pain. Twenty percent of spinal fusion patients are totally pain free at 5-year follow-up. Ten percent still experience donor site pain. In general, instrumentation does not affect the amount and localisation of pain 5 years after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The pain drawing seems to be a valuable tool when following spinal fusion patients, but its use as prognostic marker in connection with fusion surgery needs further investigation.     

The predictive value of pain drawings in lumbar spinal fusion surgery

Background contextPain drawings have been used extensively in spine surgery. It has been associated with inferior outcome after disc and stenosis surgery. Results regarding the predictive value in fusion surgery have been conflicting.PurposeTo evaluate the predictive value of pain drawings in relation to outcome after lumbar spinal fusion. To investigate if there are differences between spondylolisthesis patients and patients with degenerative disease as well as between patients with or without radicular pain.Study designProspective clinical cohort with a minimum of 1-year follow-up.Patient sampleOne hundred thirty-five patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion. Fifty-seven men and 78 women, mean age 44 years (range 21–59 years).Outcome measuresDallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) pain index and patient satisfaction. Minimal clinical important difference was defined for the LBPRS score.MethodsPain drawings were classified, using the visual inspection method, as organic or nonorganic and correlated to outcomes. Multivariate adjustment for several possible confounding variables was done using logistic regression analysis.ResultsThirty-three percent of the drawings were classified as nonorganic. Nonorganic drawings were associated with significantly higher DPQ and LBPRS scores preoperatively and at follow-up. Differences between organic and nonorganic drawings were larger in spondylolisthesis patients than in patients with degenerative disorders. Nonorganic pain drawings were associated with poorer outcome in patients with low back pain and radicular symptoms, however, not in patients without radicular symptoms. A nonorganic pain drawing predicted negative patient satisfaction with odds ratio (OR) 3.01 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14–8.55, p=.027) but had no significant predictive value with respect to improvement in the LBPRS pain index OR 1.92 (95% CI: 0.82–4.47, p=.132).ConclusionsA nonorganic pain drawing was a significant risk factor for inferior outcome after spinal fusion surgery. The predictive value did not allow for patient selection.     

Validation of a self-report instrument for assessment of hallux valgus

OBJECTIVES: To validate an instrument for self-reported hallux valgus (HV). METHODS: The self-report instrument consists of five line drawings for each foot depicting a sequential increase in HV angle of 15 degrees developed from a photograph of a normal foot. Participants were asked to select the picture which best represented their left and right feet in turn. Four hundred and fifty-nine subjects completed the self-report instrument: 100 attending a hospital rheumatology clinic and 359 who participated in a community questionnaire study. Three hundred and eighty-four completed it on two occasions (1-2 months apart in 71 subjects and 3-6 months apart in 313) and were assessed once by a blinded observer. Twenty-five subjects were assessed by the blinded observer on two occasions. Validity of the instrument was assessed by the weighted kappa statistic for subject-observer agreement and reliability by the weighted kappa statistics for subject repeatability and observer repeatability. These analyses were repeated for HV dichotomised as present or absent. RESULTS: For the five-grade HV scale, weighted kappa scores (left and right feet combined) were 0.45 for subject-observer agreement, 0.53 at 1-2 months and 0.51 at 3-6 months for subject repeatability, and 0.82 for observer repeatability. For the dichotomised scale (left and right feet combined), sensitivity was 75% and specificity was 82%: kappa scores were 0.55 for subject-observer agreement, 0.63 at 1-2 months and 0.61 at 3-6 months for subject repeatability and 0.83 for observer repeatability. CONCLUSIONS: The HV self-report instrument provides a valid and reliable assessment of the presence and severity of HV and appears suitable for use in epidemiological studies.     

中文改编版颈部疼痛和残疾量表的信度和效度

目的评估中文改编版颈部疼痛和残疾量表（SC-NPAD）的信度和效度。方法将颈部疼痛和残疾量表翻译、修订成中文版,对2008年5月至2009年3月117例第二军医大学附属长海医院骨科门诊患者进行测试,其中106例（90．1%）患者完成问卷。对量表进行因子分析,定义分量表并评估其内部一致性。第一次完成问卷5～7d,随机选择36例患者对应发放第二份问卷,共35例进入重复性测试;同时对SF-36健康调查量表（SF-36）进行发放和回收。对SC-NPAD和SF-36量表进行相关性分析。结果因子分析结果表明,SC-NPAD4个分量表——“疼痛”、“残疾”、“颈部特殊功能”和“情感和认知的影响”的内部一致性分别为0．935、0．952、0．955和0．910,重测信度良好（r=0．813,P=0．000）。SC-NPAD的所有分量表与SF-36及其生理功能、社会功能、物理职能、活力、躯体疼痛等5个独立域明显相关。结论SC-NPAD具有良好的信度和效度,适用于对中国颈部疼痛人群的评估。     

The relationship of disability (Oswestry) and pain drawings to functional testing

There was much enthusiasm about the development of computerized dynamometry in providing large quantities of data to objectively assess muscle performance. However, a much more basic issue arose questioning what these machines actual measure, particularly in pain populations. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether patients’ self-reported disability and pain expression, as evaluated with simple questionnaires, were related to isokinetic performance in low back pain patients. Method: Oswestry Disability Questionnaires and pain drawings were collected from 76 patients undergoing isokinetic testing upon entering a physical rehabilitation program. Isokinetic trunk testing was performed in the standing position and results recorded for flexion and extension at speeds of 50°, 100°, and 150° per second. Results: Patients indicating minimal disability on the Oswestry questionnaire performed better than those indicating greater levels of disability (P < 0.05; ANOVA with Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons). Patients with greater pain drawing scores, indicating unusual pain patterns, performed more poorly during isokinetic testing than those with normal drawings (P < 0.05). Regression analysis revealed that the lifting question from the Oswestry questionnaire, pain drawings scores, and sex were all significantly related to isokinetic performance and could account for 37.6–48.1% of the variance in performance (varying with speed of test). Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that isokinetic test values are significantly influenced by a patient’s self-reported disability and pain expression, which can be evaluated using simple tools such as pain drawings and the Oswestry questionnaire. This study supports the supposition that dynamometry testing is related to factors other than muscle performance. Received: 29 December 1998 Revised: 26 November 1999 Accepted: 8 December 1999     

Pain drawing and myelography in sciatic pain

In order to assess the predictive value of pain drawings of sciatic pain, 81 patients admitted because of symptoms and signs of lumbar disc herniation were asked to chart their pain on a schematic body drawing prior to myelography. There were no differences in sexes, ages, or pain duration between the group of 37 patients with a herniated lumbar disc compared to the 44 patients with a normal myelogram. From the features of the pain drawing alone, it was possible to predict the presence or absence of a herniated disc with a high statistical significance (p less than 0.001). Patients with a disc herniation rarely had pain in the upper trunk or arms (three of 37) compared with the normal group (23 of 44). Only one of nine patients with pain in the groin had disc herniation, and the same was true concerning pain in the iliac crest. Three patients without pain below the knee had no prolapsed disc. The Ransford score was significantly higher in patients with nondiscogenic sciatica, but there was no difference between the groups in the number of types of pain sensation.     

Test-retest reliability of the Donovan spinal cord injury pain classification scheme

STUDY DESIGN: Videotape rating by independent viewers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the test-retest reliability of the Donovan spinal cord injury (SCI) pain classification scheme. SETTING: Rehabilitation Centre, Alabama, USA. METHODS: A total of 28 individuals with SCI reported 60 pain sites. A structured interview and physical exam were used to illicit information to classify each pain site according to the Donovan criteria. All structured interviews and exams were videotaped. Three independent raters viewed the videotapes on two occasions, separated by a 3-month interval, and classified each pain site using the Donovan pain classification scheme. RESULTS: Considering all three raters together, 78% of the pain sites were consistently classified from one period to the next. Within each rater, consistent classification ranged from 67 to 83%. However, inter-rater agreement for the classification of each pain site into the various types of pain was low for both periods (about 50-60%). CONCLUSIONS: Pain classification within each rater generally showed adequate test-retest reliability when using the Donovan SCI pain classification scheme. However, reliability estimates of agreement across raters highlight the ongoing need to exam and improve the psychometric characteristics of the various pain classification schemes.     

Validation of the LOCOMO-25 and its minimum clinically important differences in domain scores for Chinese patients with low back pain and neck pain

BackgroundThe 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (LOCOMO-25) was developed to assess any decline in mobility functions. This study aims to validate the LOCOMO-25 in Chinese patients with chronic low back pain and/or neck pain.MethodsAdult patients with chronic low back pain and/or neck pain completed the LOCOMO-25, SF-36, EQ-5D-5L, ODI, VAS and/or NDI. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α). Test-retest reliability was assessed by intra-class correlation coefficients. Construct validity was assessed by Spearman correlation tests against other outcome measures. Sensitivity to detect differences between groups was assessed by Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal–Wallis H test, where appropriate. Intergroup comparison was performed further in terms of domain scores and their changes at test-retest.ResultsA total of 111 patients were consecutively recruited. LOCOMO-25 demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.915) and test-retest reliability (Intraclass correlation: 0.705 to 0.826). LOCOMO-25 was significantly correlated with all domains of SF-36, EQ-5D, ODI, NDI, and VAS (p < 0.01). It was found to be sensitive in differentiating between patients with neural compression (32.8 ± 16.9) and without (21.2 ± 12.7), with history of fall(s) within the previous one year (30.8 ± 16.0) and without (24.2 ± 15.1), requires assistive devices for ambulation (40.6 ± 21.6) or independent (23.6 ± 13.1) and various pain levels (mild: 17.2 ± 10.6; moderate: 23.5 ± 11.7; severe: 38.5 ± 16.5). Patients with neural compression scored significantly higher in the domain of pain and patients requiring assistive devices for ambulation scored significantly higher in the domains of ADL and social functions. The minimum detectable differences for various domains of the LOCOMO-25 score included pain (2.76), activities of daily living (6.07), social function (1.59), and mental health status (2.06).ConclusionsLOCOMO-25 has been validated in Chinese patients with chronic low back and neck pain with satisfactory psychometric properties, and with individual domain minimum clinically important differences. There is adequate internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity and sensitivity to detect differences between patients with/without neural compression, different ambulatory statuses and pain severity.     

Reliability and responsiveness of the lower extremity functional scale and the anterior knee pain scale in patients with anterior knee pain

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective methodological study of repeated measures using a sample of consecutive patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS) and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) in patients with anterior knee pain. BACKGROUND: Anterior knee pain is one of the most common orthopedic complaints affecting the knee. Yet there is currently no self-report outcome measure that has well-established reliability and responsiveness, specifically for this population. As a result, clinicians and researchers may be making inappropriate conclusions regarding patient outcomes by using questionnaires that are misleading. METHODS AND MEASURES: This multisite study involved 30 patients from 4 outpatient physical therapy clinics in Dallas, TX (24 women, 6 men; age range, 16-50 years; mean+/-SD age, 35.2+/-9.1 years). Patients receiving physical therapy for a chief complaint of anterior knee pain completed the AKPS and LEFS at their initial appointment and again 2 to 3 days later. Upon completion of physical therapy, the patients completed the AKPS, LEFS, and a global rating of change form. The treating therapist also completed a global rating of change form at the patient's final visit. The mean of the patient's and therapist's global rating of change was used as the criterion measure of change. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was high for both questionnaires (ICC2,1 = 0.95 for the AKPS and 0.98 for the LEFS). A significant correlation was found between the criterion measure of change and both questionnaires. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that both questionnaires were moderately responsive with the area under the curve slightly higher for the LEFS (0.77) than the AKPS (0.69). CONCLUSION: The LEFS and the AKPS both demonstrated high test-retest reliability and appear to be moderately responsive to clinical change in patients with anterior knee pain. Reliability and responsiveness were slightly higher in the LEFS than the AKPS. Further research is needed to determine if these measures could be modified, or new measures created, to produce an even more sensitive tool for this population.     

Validation of the Arabic version of the Kujala patellofemoral pain scoring system

Background

Patellofemoral knee pain is a common cause of anterior knee pain. The Kujala anterior knee pain score is a scoring system for the clinical assessment of disease severity. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to validate an Arabic translation of the original Kujala anterior knee pain score to assess Arabic-speaking patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome.

Validation of three paediatric pain scores for use by parents

Twenty children undergoing general surgery and 20 children undergoing otorhinolaryngological surgery were simultaneously assessed on two occasions by a doctor and a parent using three pain scoring systems. The pain scoring systems used were the Objective Pain Score, a four point numerical score and a 100 mm visual analogue scale. There was a high correlation between the scores given by the doctor and by the parents for all three scoring systems with parents consistently giving slightly higher scores than the doctor. The correlation coefficients for parental and medical pain scores in recovery were 0.77 for the Objective Pain Score, 0.70 for the four point numerical score and 0.69 for the visual analogue scale (p < 0.01). At 1 h after leaving the recovery area the correlation coefficients were 0.81, 0.80 and 0.73 respectively (p < 0.01). These results suggest that parental scoring of pain in children will be useful in future audit and research of analgesic regimens, particularly in day-case surgery.     

Validation for the reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function scale

PURPOSE: To assess the criterion validity, repeatability, and the missing value protocol of the reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function scale ('reduced scale'). METHODS: Three separate studies were performed: a cross-over study to compare the full- and reduced-scale scores in 66 UK patients for validity, a test-retest study for repeatability in 103 Australian patients, and a study for the missing value protocol of the reduced-scale questionnaire. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between scores for the full- and reduced-scale questionnaires in both cross-over and test-retest studies. For the missing value protocol of the reduced-scale questionnaire, when 3 or more of the 7 items were missing, the patient's response was regarded as invalid and the sub-scale score was eliminated from further analysis; when 2 or fewer items were missing, the mean value of the sub-scale was substituted for the missing values. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced-scale questionnaire retains excellent validity and repeatability. Its use is recommended along with the original pain dimension in studies of total joint replacement.     

Reliability of a patient-rated forearm evaluation questionnaire for patients with lateral epicondylitis.

PURPOSE: To determine the reliability of a questionnaire designed to assess forearm pain and function in patients with lateral epicondylitis. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with unilateral lateral epicondylitis completed a patient-related forearm evaluation questionnaire (PRFEQ) on two occasions. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC 2,1), standard error of measurement (SEM), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined for the whole group and for three subgroup comparisons of male vs. female subjects, subacute vs. chronic lateral epicondylitis, and work-related vs. non-work-related lateral epicondylitis. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability for the overall PRFEQ (ICC, 0.89), and its pain (ICC, 0.89) and function (ICC, 0.83) subscales was excellent. Test-retest reliability for patients with work-related lateral epicondylitis (ICC, 0.80) was significantly (p = 0.018) less than for patients with non-work-related lateral epicondylitis (ICC, 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: The PRFEQ can provide a simple, quick, and reliable estimate of arm pain and function in patients with lateral epicondylitis. However, large SEM and 95% CIs limit its ability to accurately predict individual scores.