Fig 1.
The (A) male and (B) female CBM with each body map area labeled with its three-digit identification code.
Fig 2.
(A) Example of the format for an input data.frame for the CHOIRBM package. (B) Example of an output data.frame ready for plotting. Note, only the first two rows and last two rows are shown. (C) Example data from (A) and (B) plotted in a CBM.
Fig 3.
Example of the CBM instrument format required in REDCap for streamlined use with the CHOIRBM package. Selecting a single text box to collect a patient’s body map data allows the CHOIRBM string_to_map() function to automatically generate plot-ready R data.frames.
Fig 4.
The distribution of the number of areas on the CBM (each bar represents one value) that each patient endorses can be visualized with the plot_nareas_histogram() function.
Fig 5.
The (A) male and (B) female CBM with the percentage of patients who endorsed each body location. (C) The difference between the percent female endorsement of each CBM location and the percent male endorsement (subtract male endorsement from female endorsement).
Table 1.
The results of a left-tailed z-test to determine whether the proportion of men endorsing each body map area was less than the proportion of women endorsing the same area.
The p-values were adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing with the Bonferroni correction (the default for the package function comp_choirbm_ztest()). Location codes that start with a “1” indicate the front of the body and codes that begin with a “2” indicate the back of the body.
Table 2.
The results of logistic regression models for each CBM location to quantify the relationship between average pain intensity score and endorsement of each location.
Location codes that start with a “1” indicate the front of the body and codes that begin with a “2” indicate the back of the body.
Fig 6.
(A) Logistic regression results indicating which locations on the CBM were significantly predicted by the average pain intensity score. Significance levels were stratified and broken up into * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, and ns p > 0.05. (B) Logistic regression results indicating which locations on the CBM were significantly predicted by the PROMIS Emotional Support score.
Table 3.
The results of logistic regression models for each CBM location to quantify the relationship between PROMIS Emotional Support scores and endorsement of each location.
Fig 7.
A co-occurrence heatmap illustrating the number of times each CBM area is endorsed concurrently with every other area.
Cells are colored according to the number of times that any two locations were endorsed together by a patient, with lighter hues indicating more common endorsement in the dataset.
Table 4.
The ten most co-endorsed locations of the CBM (of 5,402 possible) using data collected during the validation study.