TY - JOUR
T1 - Rethinking measurement of movement-evoked pain with digital technology
AU - Frumkin, M. R.
AU - Zhang, Jingwen
AU - Xu, Ziqi
AU - Yakdan, Salim
AU - Benedict, Braeden
AU - Javeed, Saad
AU - Zhang, Justin
AU - Botterbush, Kathleen
AU - Goodin, Burel R.
AU - Lu, Chenyang
AU - Ray, Wilson
AU - Greenberg, Jacob
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc This is an open access article under the CC BY license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
PY - 2026
Y1 - 2026
N2 - Movement-evoked pain (MEP) may be a useful metric for phenotyping musculoskeletal pain conditions. However, there is significant disagreement over operationalization, and no studies have assessed stability of MEP over time. Fitbit and Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data were collected from adults with moderate-to-severe chronic pain schedule to receive lumbar/thoracolumbar fusion surgery (N=114). On average, participants provided 323 h of Fitbit data and 74 EMA surveys (84% completion rate). To mimic task-based assessment of MEP using the 6-minute walk test, EMA pain ratings completed within 3 h of walking at a speed ≥70spm for at least 6 min were extracted. Of the full sample, 91 individuals (80%) had any instances of pain ratings following 6-minute activity bouts (Median=6, SD=11). Post-activity pain scores exhibited good within-person consistency (ICC=.76). However, between-person differences in average pain accounted for >70% of the variance in post-activity pain. MEP change scores defined as the difference between post-activity and pre-activity pain scores had poor reliability (ICC =.08). MEP change scores were not associated with average pain or factors related to the uncontrolled nature of digital assessment (e.g., activity amount, time from activity to pain report). However, MEP change scores tended to be lower when the preceding pain rating was elevated (β = -7.96, 95% Credible Interval: -9.28, -6.66), suggesting ceiling effects. Small effects of time of day and prior activity were also observed, which could contaminate MEP assessed in the lab or clinic. Continued development of digital methodologies for assessing MEP is recommended. Perspective: Existing movement-evoked pain assessments have limitations. Post-activity pain ratings capture overall disability and day-to-day fluctuations in pain, rather than the relationship between movement and pain. Pre-to-post activity change scores had poor reliability when assessed naturalistically and over time. Digital methodologies capture movement-evoked pain continuously across time, contexts, and real-world environments.
AB - Movement-evoked pain (MEP) may be a useful metric for phenotyping musculoskeletal pain conditions. However, there is significant disagreement over operationalization, and no studies have assessed stability of MEP over time. Fitbit and Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data were collected from adults with moderate-to-severe chronic pain schedule to receive lumbar/thoracolumbar fusion surgery (N=114). On average, participants provided 323 h of Fitbit data and 74 EMA surveys (84% completion rate). To mimic task-based assessment of MEP using the 6-minute walk test, EMA pain ratings completed within 3 h of walking at a speed ≥70spm for at least 6 min were extracted. Of the full sample, 91 individuals (80%) had any instances of pain ratings following 6-minute activity bouts (Median=6, SD=11). Post-activity pain scores exhibited good within-person consistency (ICC=.76). However, between-person differences in average pain accounted for >70% of the variance in post-activity pain. MEP change scores defined as the difference between post-activity and pre-activity pain scores had poor reliability (ICC =.08). MEP change scores were not associated with average pain or factors related to the uncontrolled nature of digital assessment (e.g., activity amount, time from activity to pain report). However, MEP change scores tended to be lower when the preceding pain rating was elevated (β = -7.96, 95% Credible Interval: -9.28, -6.66), suggesting ceiling effects. Small effects of time of day and prior activity were also observed, which could contaminate MEP assessed in the lab or clinic. Continued development of digital methodologies for assessing MEP is recommended. Perspective: Existing movement-evoked pain assessments have limitations. Post-activity pain ratings capture overall disability and day-to-day fluctuations in pain, rather than the relationship between movement and pain. Pre-to-post activity change scores had poor reliability when assessed naturalistically and over time. Digital methodologies capture movement-evoked pain continuously across time, contexts, and real-world environments.
KW - Digital assessment
KW - Digital phenotyping
KW - Ecological momentary assessment
KW - Movement-evoked pain
KW - Passive sensing
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105029643554
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105643
DO - 10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105643
M3 - Article
C2 - 41422846
AN - SCOPUS:105029643554
SN - 1526-5900
JO - Journal of Pain
JF - Journal of Pain
M1 - 105643
ER -