Method: Pain drawings were collected from thirty-four patients with various types of musculoskeletal pain. On the first clinic visit, patients were instructed to draw in their pain areas on a diagram depicting the body (P1). The examining physiatrist, blinded to the patients drawing, also drew in the pain areas on a separate diagram based on thorough history taking (D). After 2 to 9 days without treatment, patients repeated their pain drawings (P2). A second physiatrist input each of the pain drawings into the Pain Chart System (PCS), for comparison of pain distribution sites and areas among the three drawings. The weighted-sum of comparison algorithms was calculated for similarity determinations between drawings.

Results: The similarity values between P1 and P2, and P1 and D were 0.63±0.18 (mean±S.D.) and 0.62±0.18 (mean±S.D.), respectively, reflecting a high reliability of pain drawings.

Conclusion: High test-retest and inter-individual reliability of successive pain drawings suggest that pain drawings may be a useful tool to describe the painful sites. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2003; 27: 404-409)

Method: Nineteen low back pain patients after traffic (12 cases) or industrial (7 cases) accidents were compensation insurance status. 40 controls were low back pain patients without compensation insurance status. All had been evaluated with an electrodiagnostic study. Pain drawings and symptom check list for minor psychiatric disorder (SCL- MPD) were assessed to speculate the characteristics of the psychologic factors.

Results: In the electrodiagnostic study patients with compensation insurance status had segmental radiculopathy in 5 cases (26.3%) and controls in 18 cases (45.5%). Pain drawings classified as Ransford scores were abnormal in 14 cases (73.7%) of the patients and in 9 cases (24.3%) of the controls. Visual inspection of the pain drawings classified as non-indicative were 12 cases (63.2%) of the patients and 13 cases (31.3%) of the controls. SCL-MPD showed higher somatization, depression and phobic-anxiety scores than the controls.

Conclusion: Pain drawing and SCL-MPD are available for screening of the psychological factors and management for low back pain of compensation insurance stauts. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2003; 27: 394-398)

Objective: The purpose of the this study was to determine whether pain location indicated in pain drawings was related to the specific lumbo-sacral radiculopathy.

Method: The study group consisted of 153 patients (62 men, 91 women) complaining low back pain with or without radiating pain. Nerve conduction study and electromyographic evaluation were performed for the diagnostic purpose. Chi-square test and multivariate stepwise discriminant analysis were used to identify the patients with radiculopathy on the basis of their pain drawings.

Results: There was significant relationship between pain location indicated in the pain drawing and the lumbar radiculopathy (p＜0.05). In patient without the anterolateral thigh pain, the positivity of S1 radiculopathy was high. In patients with anterolateral thigh and leg pain without posterior thigh pain, the positivity of L5/S1 radiculopathy was high. For predicting the level of the lesion there were three discriminant functions (p＜0.05). Patients with S1 radiculopathy showed negative correlation with anterolateral thigh pain. L5/S1 radiculopathy showed negative correlation with posterior thigh pain but were predicted by pain drawing on anterolateral lower leg.

Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that pain drawings may be helpful in identifying specific radiculopathy. As with any evaluation, the drawings should be considered in combination with findings from other diagnostic methods and interpreted with caution and in light of the full clinical picture.