Explore the vast range of titles available.

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections are one of the commonly performed procedures in managing low back and lower extremity pain. In the past, Pinto et al and Chou et al performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar radiculopathy. In contrast, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the efficacy and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopic guidance. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of 3 categories of epidural injections for lumbar radiculopathy or sciatica performed utilizing saline with steroids, local anesthetic alone, or steroids with local anesthetic. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, RCTs with a placebo control or an active control design, performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with at least 6 months of followed-up were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Literature search was performed through January 2021. Methodological quality assessments were performed. Evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: In this analysis, a total of 21 RCTs were utilized with at least 6 months of follow-up and performed under fluoroscopic guidance. However, only 6 of 25 trials from Cochrane review met inclusion criteria for this review. Based on qualitative analysis, of the 21 trials included in the present analysis, there was only one placebo-controlled trial found to be negative. With conventional meta-analysis, there was no significant difference among the studies because all of the studies were active control with local anesthetic or local anesthetic and steroids. Further, with single-arm analysis, of the 5 trials included in that portion of the study, significant improvement was seen with local anesthetic alone compared to local anesthetic and steroids. There was a tendency for better improvement with steroids in terms of both pain relief and functional status. The level of evidence is Level I or strong for local anesthetic with steroids and Level I to II or moderate to strong for local anesthetic as a single agent based on multiple relevant high quality RCTs. LIMITATIONS: Despite multiple trials available, there is a paucity of true RCTs performed under fluoroscopic guidance with any of the approaches. CONCLUSION: Epidural injections with or without steroids for radiculopathy showed significant effectiveness with Level I or strong evidence for local anesthetic with steroids and Level II to I or moderate to strong evidence with local anesthetic alone. KEY WORDS: Chronic low back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, sciatica, epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, caudal epidural injections, interlaminar epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation has been utilized with increasing frequency in managing chronic intractable spinal pain and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in addition to other neuropathic pain states. The literature has shown the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain with improvement in quality of life and cost utility. There have not been any reviews performed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population in reference to utilization and expenditure patterns of spinal cord stimulators. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess the utilization and expenditures for spinal cord stimulation in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess the utilization patterns and expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars only trials and implants were included. RESULTS: Utilization patterns showed that spinal cord stimulation trials increased from 12,680 in 2009 to 36,280 in 2018, a 186% increase with an annual increase of 12.4%. The rate of trials per 100,000 population increased from 28 in 2009 to 61 in 2018 with a 120% increase, or an annual increase of 9.1%. The pulse generator implants increased from 7,640 in 2009 to 22,960 in 2018, an increase of 201%, with an annual increase of 13%. In addition, percutaneous placement with pulse generator implants increased from 4,080 in 2009 to 14,316 in 2018, a 252% increase, or 15% annual increase. In contrast, implantation of neurostimulator electrodes with paddle leads with laminectomy and placement of spinal pulse generator increased from 3,560 in 2009 to 8,600 in 2018, a 142% increase or an annual increase of 10.3%. Analysis of expenditures showed total inflation-adjusted expenditures increased from$292,153,701 in 2009 to $ 1,142,434,137 in 2018, a 291% increase from 2009 to 2018 and 16.4% annual increase. These expenditures were 125% higher than facet joint interventions and 138% higher than epidural interventions in 2018. In contrast, these expenditures were 55% below the expenditures of facet joint interventions and 66% lower than epidural injections in 2009. Trial to implant ratio improved from 42.5% in 2009 to 63.6% in 2018. An overwhelming majority of trials (90%) were performed by nonsurgical physicians, whereas, 56% of implants were performed by non-surgeons. LIMITATIONS: This assessment includes only FFS Medicare population, thus eliminating approximately 30% of the population with Medicare Advantage plans. In addition, this study has not taken into consideration various revisions not included in 3 specific codes. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of spinal cord stimulators in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 showed explosive increases of trials, implants and overall costs. KEY WORDS: Chronic pain, spinal pain, spinal cord stimulation, spinal cord stimulation trial, pulse generator implant, paddle leads with laminectomy, utilization trends of expenditures

BACKGROUND: Various regulations and practice patterns develop on the basis of Local Coverage Determination (LCD), which are variably perceived as guidelines and/or mandated polices/ regulations. LCDs developed in 2021 and effective since December 2021 mandated a minimum of 2 views for final needle placement with contrast injection which includes both anteroposterior (AP) and lateral or oblique view. Radiation safety has been a major concern for pain physicians and multiple tools have been developed to reduce radiation dose, along with improvement in technologies to limit radiation exposure while performing fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, with implementation of principles of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The mandated 2 views of epidural injections have caused concern among some physicians, because of the potential of increased exposure to ionizing radiation, despite application of various principles to minimize radiation exposure. Others, including policymakers are of the opinion that it reduces potential abuse and improves safety. OBJECTIVE: To assess variations in the performance of epidural procedures prior to the implementation of the new LCD compared with after the implementation of the new LCD by comparing time and dosage for all types of epidural procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, case controlled, comparative evaluation of radiation exposure during epidural procedures in interventional pain management. SETTING: An interventional pain management practice and a specialty referral center in a private practice setting in the United States. METHODS: The study was performed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria. The main outcome measure was radiation exposure time measured in seconds and dose measured in mGy-kG2 (milligray to kilogray squared per procedure). RESULTS: Changes in exposure and dose varied by procedural type and location. Exposure time in seconds increased overall by 21%, whereas radiation dose mGy-kG increased 133%. Fluoroscopy time increased most for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of 43%, followed by 29% for cervical interlaminar epidural injections, 20% for caudal epidural injections, and 14% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. In contrast, highest increases were observed in the radiation dose mGy of 191% for caudal epidural injections, followed by 173% for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, 113% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and the lowest being cervical interlaminar epidural injections of 94%. This study also shows lesser increases for cervical interlaminar epidural injections because an oblique view is utilized rather than a lateral view resulting in a radiation dosage increase of 94% compared to overall increase of 133%, whereas the duration of time of 29% was higher than the overall combined duration of all procedures which only increased by 21%. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective evaluation utilizing the experience of a single physician. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed significant increases in radiation exposure time and dosage; however, increase of dosage was overall 21% median Interquartile Range (IQR) compared to 133% of radiation dose median IQR. In addition, the results also showed variations for procedure, overall showing highest increases for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections for time (43%) and caudal epidural injections for dosage (191%). KEY WORDS: Spinal interventional procedures, cervical epidural injections, lumbar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, radiation exposure time, radiation dose

Traditional pain assessment methods have significant limitations due to the high variability in patient reported pain scores and perception of pain by different individuals. There is a need for generalized and automatic pain detection and recognition methods. In this paper, state-of-the-art machine learning (ML) and deep learning methods in this field are analyzed as well as pain management techniques. The objective of the study is to analyze the current use of artificial intelligence (AI) and ML in the analysis and management of pain and to disseminate this knowledge prompting future utilization by medical professionals. A narrative review of the literature focusing on the latest algorithms in AI and ML for pain assessment and management. Research studies were collected using a literature search on PubMed, Science Direct and IEEE Xplore between 2018 and 2020. The results of our assessment resulted in the identification of 47 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Pain assessment was the most studied subject with 11 studies, followed by automated measurements with 10 studies, spinal diagnosis with 8 studies, facial expression with 7 studies, pain assessment in special settings evaluated in 5 studies, 4 studies described treatment algorithms, and 2 studies assessed neonatal pain. These studies varied from simple to highly complex methodology. The majority of the studies suffered from inclusion of a small number of patients and without replication of results. However, considering AI and ML are dynamic and emerging specialties, the results shown here are promising. Consequently, we have described all the available literature in summary formats with commentary. Among the various assessments, facial expression and spinal diagnosis and management appear to be ready for inclusion as we continue to progress. This review is not a systematic review of ML and AI applications in pain research. This review only provides a general idea of the upcoming techniques but does not provide an authoritative evidence-based conclusive opinion of their clinical application and effectiveness. While a majority of the studies focused on classification tasks, very few studies have explored the diagnosis and management of pain. Usage of ML techniques as support tools for clinicians holds an immense potential in the field of pain management.

Cervical facet joint pain is often managed with either cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical medial branch blocks, or cervical intraarticular injections. However, the effectiveness of each modality continues to be debated. Further, there is no agreement in reference to superiority or inferiority of facet joint nerve blocks compared to radiofrequency neurotomy, even though cervical facet joint radiofrequency neurotomy has been preferred by many and in fact, has been mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), except when radiofrequency cannot be confirmed. Each procedure has advantages and disadvantages in reference to clinical utility, outcomes, cost utility, and side effect profile. However, comparative analysis has not been performed thus far in the literature in a clinical setting. A retrospective, case-control, comparative evaluation of outcomes and cost utility. The study was conducted in an interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. To evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost utility of therapeutic medial branch blocks with radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic neck pain of facet joint origin. The study was performed utilizing Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Analysis (STROBE) criteria. Only the patients meeting the diagnostic criteria of facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic local anesthetic blocks were included.The main outcome measure was pain relief measured by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. Significant improvement was defined as at least 50% improvement in pain relief. Cost utility was calculated with direct payment data for the procedures with addition of estimated indirect costs over a period of one year based on highly regarded surgical literature and previously published interventional pain management literature. Overall, 295 patients met inclusion criteria with 132 patients receiving cervical medial branch blocks and 163 patients with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. One hundred and seven patients in the cervical medial branch group and 105 patients in the radiofrequency group completed one year follow-up. There was significant improvement in both groups from baseline to 12 months with pain relief and proportion of patients with >= 50% pain relief. Average relief of each procedure for cervical medial branch blocks was 13 to 14 weeks, whereas for radiofrequency neurotomy, it was 20 to 25 weeks. Significant pain relief was recorded in 100%, 94%, and 81% of the patients in the medial branch blocks group, whereas it was 100%, 69%, and 64% in the radiofrequency neurotomy group at 3, 6, and 12 month follow-up, with significant difference at 6 and 12 months.Cost utility analysis showed average cost for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $4,994 for cervical medial branch blocks compared to $5,364 for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. Six of 132 patients (5%) in the cervical medial branch group and 53 of 163 (33%) patients in the cervical radiofrequency neurotomy group were converted to other treatments, either due to side effects (6 patients or 4%) or inadequate relief (47 patients or 29%). In this study, outcomes of cervical therapeutic medial branch blocks compared to radiofrequency neurotomy demonstrated significantly better outcomes with significant pain relief with similar costs for both treatments over a period of one year.

Background: The trends of the expenditures of facet joint interventions have not been specifically assessed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population since 2009 Objectives: The objective of this investigation is to assess trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. Study Design: The study was designed to analyze trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009-2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was considered as undergoing facet joint interventions throughout the year. • A visit included all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one per region utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered all procedures (multiple levels). Data for the analysis was obtained from the standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and also were inflation adjusted to 2018 US dollars. Results: This analysis showed expenditures increased by 79% from 2009 to 2018 in the form of total cost for facet joint interventions, at an annual rate of 6.7%. Cervical and lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy procedures increased 185% and 169%. However, inflation-adjusted expenditures with 2018 US dollars showed an overall increase of 53% with an annual increase of 4.9%. In addition, using inflation-adjusted expenditures per procedures increased, the overall 6% with an annual increase of 0.7%. Overall, per patient costs, with inflation adjustment, decreased from$1,925 to $ 1,785 with a decline of 7% and an annual decline of 0.8%. Allowed charges per visit also declined after inflation adjustment from$951.76 to $ 849.86 with an overall decline of 11% and an annual decline of 1.3%. Staged episodes of radiofrequency neurotomy were performed in 23.9% of patients and more than 2 episodes for radiofrequency neurotomy in 6.9%, in lumbar spine and 19.6% staged and 5.1% more than 2 episodes in cervical spine of patients in 2018. Limitations: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. Conclusions: Even after adjusting for inflation, there was a significant increase for the expenditures of facet joint interventions with an overall 53% increase. Costs per patient and cost per visit declined. Inflation-adjusted cost per year declined 7% overall and 0.8% annually from$1,925 to $ 1,785, and inflation-adjusted cost per visit also declined 11% annually and 1.3% per year from$952 in 2009 to $ 850 in 2018. Key words: Facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis, facet joint injections, Medicare expenditures

Background: With increasing costs of health care in the United States, attention is focused on expensive conditions. Musculoskeletal disorders with low back and neck pain account for the third highest amount of various disease categories. Minimally invasive interventional techniques for managing spinal pain, including epidural injections, have been considered to be growing rapidly. However, recent analyses of utilization of interventional techniques from 2000 to 2018 has shown a decline of 2.6% and a decline of 21% from 2009 to 2018 for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures. Objectives: The objectives of this analysis of epidural procedures from 2000 to 2018 are to provide an update on utilization of epidural injections in managing chronic pain in the fee-forservice (FFS) Medicare population, with a comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. Study Design: Utilization patterns and variables of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain from 2000 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2018 in the FFS Medicare population in the United States. Methods: This analysis was performed by utilizing master data from CMS, physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2018. The analysis was performed by the assessment of utilization patterns using guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Results: Overall, epidural procedures declined at a rate of 20.7% per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in FFS Medicare in the United States from 2009 to 2018, with an annual decline of 2.5%. However, from 2000 to 2009, there was an increase of 89.2%, with an annual increase of 7.3%. This analysis showed a decline in all categories, with an annual decrease of 4.7% for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections, 4.7% decline for cervical/thoracic transforaminal epidural injections, 1.1% decline for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidural injections, and finally 0.4% decline for cervical/thoracic interlaminar epidural injections. Overall declines from 2009 to 2018 were highest for cervical and thoracic transforaminal injections with 35.1%, followed by lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections of 34.9%, followed by 9.4% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidurals, and 3.5% for cervical and thoracic interlaminar epidurals. Limitations: This analysis was limited by noninclusion of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. In addition, utilization data for individual states continues to be sparse and may not be accurate or representative of the population. Conclusions: The declining utilization of epidural injections in all categories with an annual of 2.5% and overall decrease of 20.7% from 2009 to 2018 compared with annual increases of 7.3% and overall increase of 89.2% from 2000 to 2009 shows a slow decline of utilization of all epidural injections. Key words: Chronic spinal pain, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, utilization patterns

BACKGROUND: Despite epidurals being one of the most common interventional pain procedures for managing chronic spinal pain in the United States, expenditure analysis lacks assessment in correlation with utilization patterns. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess expenditures for epidural procedures in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was described as receiving epidural procedures throughout the year. • A visit was considered to include all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one treatment per region utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered as all procedures including bilateral and multiple levels. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018 was utilized. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: Total expenditures were$723,981,594 in 2009, whereas expenditures of 2018 were $ 829,987,636, with an overall 14.6% increase, or an annual increase of 1.5%. However, the inflation-adjusted rate was$847,058,465 in 2009, compared to $ 829,987,636 in 2018, a reduction overall of 2% and an annual reduction of 0.2%. Inflation-adjusted per patient annual costs decreased from$988.93 in 2009 to $ 819.27 in 2018 with a decrease of 17.2% or an annual decline of 2.1%. In addition, inflation-adjusted costs per procedure decreased from$399.77 to $ 377.94, or 5.5% overall and 0.6% annually. Per procedure, episode, visit, and patient expenses were higher for transforaminal epidural procedures than lumbar interlaminar/caudal epidural procedures. Overall, costs of transforaminal epidurals increased 27.6% or 2.7% annually, whereas lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections cost were reduced 2.7%, or 0.3% annually. Inflation-adjusted costs for transforaminal epidurals increased 9.1% or 1.0% annually and declined 16.9 or 2.0% annually for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Expenditures for epidural procedures in chronic spinal pain were assessed only in the FFS Medicare population. This excluded over 30% of the Medicare population, which is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for inflation, there was a decrease of expenditures for epidural procedures of 2%, or 0.2% annually, from 2009 to 2018. However, prior to inflation, the increases were noted at 14.6% and 1.5%. Inflation-adjusted costs per patient, per visit, and per procedure also declined. The proportion of Medicare patients per 100,000 receiving epidural procedures decreased 9.1%, or 1.1% annually. However, assessment of individual procedures showed higher costs for transforaminal epidural procedures compared to lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural procedures. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, epidural procedures, caudal epidural, lumbar interlaminar epidural, cervical interlaminar epidural, thoracic interlaminar epidural, lumbar transforaminal epidural procedures, Medicare expenditures

The role of antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy is well known for its primary and secondary prevention of sequela from cardiovascular disease by decreasing the incidence of acute cerebral, cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and other thrombo-embolicevents. The overwhelming data show that the risk of thrombotic events is significantly higher than that of bleeding during surgery after antiplatelet drug discontinuation. It has been assumed that discontinuing antiplatelet therapy prior to performing interventional pain management techniques is a common practice, even though doing so may potentially increase the risk of acute cerebral and cardiovascular events. A survey of practice patterns was conducted in 2012, since then the risks associated with thromboembolic events and bleeding, has not been systematically evaluated. To conduct an updated assessment of the perioperative antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice patterns of U.S. interventional pain management physicians and compare this with data collected in 2012 with 2021 data regarding practice patterns of continuing or discontinuing anticoagulant therapy. STUDY DESIGNn: Postal survey of interventional pain management physicians. Interventional pain management practices in the United States. The survey was conducted based on online responses of the members of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) in 2021. The survey was designed similar to the 2012 survey to assess updated practice patterns. The questionnaire was sent out to 1,700 members in October 2021. Out of these, 185 members completed the survey, while 105 were returned due to invalid addresses. The results showed that 23% changed their practice patterns during the previous year. The results also showed that all physicians discontinued warfarin therapy with the majority of physicians accepting an INR of 1.5 as a safe level. Low dose aspirin (81 mg) was discontinued for 3 to 7 days for low-risk procedures by 8% of the physicians, 34% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate risk procedures, whereas they were discontinued by 76% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. High dose aspirin (325 mg) was discontinued at a higher rate. Antiplatelet agents, including dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox (aspirin, extended-release dipyridamole) were discontinued from 3 to 5 days by 18%-23% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 60% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 90% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. Platelet aggregation inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticlopidine, and ticagrelor were discontinued for 3 to 5 days by approximately 26% to 41% for low-risk procedures, almost 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 97% for high-risk procedures. Thrombin inhibitor dabigatran was discontinued by 33% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, 92% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures. Anti-Xa agents, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and Edoxaban were discontinued in over 25% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures. This study was limited by its being an online survey of the membership of one organization in one country, that there was only a 11.6% response rate, and the sample size is relatively small. Underreporting in surveys is common. Further, the incidence of thromboembolic events or epidural hematomas was not assessed. The results in the 2021 survey illustrate a continued pattern of discontinuing antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in the perioperative period. The majority of discontinuation patterns appear to fall within guidelines.

Abstract Objective Despite the high prevalence of chronic multisite pain, there is little consensus on methods to characterize it. Commonly used assessments report only one dimension of pain, that is, intensity, thus ignoring the spatial aspect of pain. We developed a novel pain quantification index, the Integrated Pain Quantification Index (IPQI), on a scale of 0 to 1 that integrates multiple distinct pain measures into a single value, thus representing multidimensional pain information with a single value. Design Single-visit, noninterventional, epidemiological study. Setting Fourteen outpatient multidisciplinary pain management programs. Patients Patients with chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs for at least six months with average overall pain intensity of at least 5 on the numeric rating scale. Methods Development of IPQI was performed in a large population (N = 810) of chronic pain patients from the Multiple Areas of Pain (MAP) study. Results Prevalence of two or more noncontiguous painful areas was at 88.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86–0.90), with a mean of 6.3 areas (SD = 5.57 areas). Prevalence of more than 10% body area in pain was at 52.8% (95% CI = 0.49–0.56), with a mean at 16.1% (17.16%). On average, IPQI values were near the middle of the scale, with mean and median IPQI at 0.52 (SD = 0.13) and 0.55, respectively. The IPQI was generalizable and clinically relevant across all domains recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. Conclusions IPQI provided a single pain score for representing complex, multidimensional pain information on one scale and has implications for comparing pain populations across longitudinal clinical trials.