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

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.

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.

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.

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.