Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Jan 1;39(1):29-40.
doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001084.

Are Ecological Momentary Assessments of Pain Valid and Reliable? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Mark Overton  1 , Sarah Ward  2 , Nicola Swain  1 , Carrie Falling  1 , David Gwynne-Jones  3 , Roger Fillingim  4 , Ramakrishnan Mani  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Are Ecological Momentary Assessments of Pain Valid and Reliable? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Mark Overton et al. Clin J Pain. .

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the level of evidence for the psychometric properties of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in populations with persistent pain.

Materials and methods: Five databases were searched from 1980 to December 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full text, extracted data, and assessed adherence to reporting standards and methodological rigor before evaluating the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis, including the pooling of correlations for the relevant EMA pain outcomes, was completed.

Results: Overall, 3270 studies were identified, with 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses confirmed good to excellent relationships demonstrated between EMA and recalled pain intensity and interference across different timeframes. Many of the included studies did not fully adhere to recommended reporting standards, and the quality of included studies was either doubtful or inadequate due to methodological flaws. The level of evidence for measurement properties of pain outcomes was low for the criterion validity of pain intensity and interference and very low for reliability and construct validity of pain intensity and interference.

Discussion: Ecological momentary assessment of pain experience appears both valid and reliable. Although the levels of evidence were low or very low, these findings provide preliminary support for the use of EMA in clinical practice and research settings. Potential strengths of EMA include providing measures with greater ecological validity while also reducing recall bias, both pertinent in pain outcome measurement. More research, including higher-quality studies, is needed to demonstrate further support for EMA, including the need for establishing other types of validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Cohen SP, Vase L, Hooten WM. Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances. Lancet. 2021;397:2082–2097.
    1. Swain N, Parr-Brownlie LC, Thompson BL, et al. Six things you need to know about pain. N Z Med J. 2018;131:5–8.
    1. Treede R-D, Rief W, Barke A, et al. Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP Classification of Chronic Pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Pain. 2019;160:19–27.
    1. Tardif H, Arnold C, Hayes C, et al. Establishment of the Australasian electronic persistent pain outcomes collaboration. Pain Med. 2017;18:1007–1018.
    1. Malhotra A, Mackey S. Outcomes in pain medicine: A brief review. Pain Therapy. 2012;1:5.