English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

None of the previous studies localized pain in comparison with graphic scheme. Our aim was to investigate the validity of direct questioning about the main pain localization in comparison with schematic evaluation. In this cross-sectional study, 331 patients, mean age 49.4±10.72 years, localized their main pain site anatomically with manikin and by direct questioning. Two methods were employed to localize pain: direct questioning and schematic evaluation (manikin). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and odds ratio (OR) were used to compare these two methods. Study patients answered in both methods. The sensitivity and PPV were mostly in a weak range, while accuracy, specificity and NPV were mostly in good range. Kappa index was in the marginal reproducibility range. Pain in the left part of the body had a higher OR (OR=9). PLR for pain in the right part of the body was 28.03. NLR for all questions was located in the small and rarely important change probability group. Negative answer in direct questioning was more reliable than a positive one. Pain localization in the left side of the body was more reliable.

Comparing Diagnostic Accuracy of Direct Questioning Versus Schematic Evaluation of Chronic Pain Localization