Background: Lipedema is a chronic progressive condition affecting approximately 10% of women, characterized by disproportionate subcutaneous adipose tissue accumulation and pain in the lower extremities. Standardized assessment methods for pain evaluation in lipedema remain limited. The Progressive Pain Check (PPC) method represents a potentially valuable tool for standardized pain assessment in lipedema patients. Objective: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the PPC method for clinical assessment of evoked pain in lipedema patients. Methods: Two independent assessors performed PPC evaluations. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC(2,1), two-way random-effects, absolute agreement, single-measurement] with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: This study included 429 women diagnosed with lipedema (mean age 41.2 ± 11.5 years, mean disease duration 27.2 ± 12.6 years). Patient characteristics revealed mean BMI of 29.5 ± 6.9 kg/m2, predominantly Type III lipedema presentation, and disease onset during adolescence (mean age 14 ± 9.3 years). The PPC method demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability between two independent assessors across all examined anatomical districts. Conclusions: The PPC method shows promise as a simple, repeatable, and standardized clinical tool for evoked pain assessment in lipedema patients. The demonstrated inter-rater reliability supports its potential utility in clinical practice. Further research is warranted to evaluate its intra-rater reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness in monitoring treatment effects.

Inter-Rater Reliability of the Progressive Pain Check Method for Standardized Pain Assessment in Lipedema

Elhadidy, Heba Safwat Mhmoued Abdo
;
Russotto, Antonino;Politano, Gianfranco;Gianino, Maria Michela
2026-01-01

Abstract

Background: Lipedema is a chronic progressive condition affecting approximately 10% of women, characterized by disproportionate subcutaneous adipose tissue accumulation and pain in the lower extremities. Standardized assessment methods for pain evaluation in lipedema remain limited. The Progressive Pain Check (PPC) method represents a potentially valuable tool for standardized pain assessment in lipedema patients. Objective: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the PPC method for clinical assessment of evoked pain in lipedema patients. Methods: Two independent assessors performed PPC evaluations. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC(2,1), two-way random-effects, absolute agreement, single-measurement] with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: This study included 429 women diagnosed with lipedema (mean age 41.2 ± 11.5 years, mean disease duration 27.2 ± 12.6 years). Patient characteristics revealed mean BMI of 29.5 ± 6.9 kg/m2, predominantly Type III lipedema presentation, and disease onset during adolescence (mean age 14 ± 9.3 years). The PPC method demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability between two independent assessors across all examined anatomical districts. Conclusions: The PPC method shows promise as a simple, repeatable, and standardized clinical tool for evoked pain assessment in lipedema patients. The demonstrated inter-rater reliability supports its potential utility in clinical practice. Further research is warranted to evaluate its intra-rater reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness in monitoring treatment effects.
2026
16
9
1
9
allodynia; clinical; examination; inter-rater reliability; lipedema; pain assessment
Patton, Laura; Ricolfi, Lorenzo; Elhadidy, Heba Safwat Mhmoued Abdo; Reverdito, Valeria; Russotto, Antonino; Politano, Gianfranco; Gianino, Maria Mich...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/2161910
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact