Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (7) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Other (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (7)
Keywords
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (7)
Background and aims
In 2008, the International Association for the Study of Pain Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) proposed a clinical grading system to help identify patients with neuropathic pain (NeP). We previously applied this classification system, along with two NeP screening tools, the painDETECT (PD-Q) and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale (LANSS), to identify NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain. Both screening tools failed to identify a large proportion of patients with clinically classified NeP, however a limitation of our study was the use of a single clinician performing the NeP classification. In 2016, the NeuPSIG grading system was updated with the aim of improving its clinical utility. We were interested in field testing of the revised grading system, in particular in the application of the grading system and the agreement of interpretation of clinical findings. The primary aim of the current study was to explore the application of the NeuPSIG revised grading system based on patient records and to establish the inter-rater agreement of detecting NeP. A secondary aim was to investigate the level of agreement in detecting NeP between the revised NeuPSIG grading system and the LANSS and PD-Q.
Methods
In this retrospective study, two expert clinicians (Specialist Pain Medicine Physician and Advanced Scope Physiotherapist) independently reviewed 152 patient case notes and classified them according to the revised grading system. The consensus of the expert clinicians’ clinical classification was used as “gold standard” to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the two NeP screening tools.
Results
The two clinicians agreed in classifying 117 out of 152 patients (ICC 0.794, 95% CI 0.716–850; κ 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.73), yielding a 77% agreement. Compared to the clinicians’ consensus, both LANSS and PD-Q demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy in detecting NeP (LANSS sensitivity 24%, specificity 97%; PD-Q sensitivity 53%, specificity 67%).
Conclusions
The application of the revised NeP grading system was feasible in our retrospective analysis of patients with neck/upper limb pain. High inter-rater percentage agreement was demonstrated. The hierarchical order of classification may lead to false negative classification. We propose that in the absence of sensory changes or diagnostic tests in patients with neck/upper limb pain, classification of NeP may be further improved using a cluster of clinical findings that confirm a relevant nerve lesion/disease, such as reflex and motor changes. The diagnostic accuracy of LANSS and PD-Q in identifying NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain remains limited. Clinical judgment remains crucial to diagnosing NeP in the clinical practice.
Implications
Our observations suggest that in view of the heterogeneity in patients with neck/upper limb pain, a considerable amount of expertise is required to interpret the revised grading system. While the application was feasible in our clinical setting, it is unclear if this will be feasible to apply in primary health care settings where early recognition and timely intervention is often most needed. The use of LANSS and PD-Q in the identification of NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain remains questionable.
Introduction Development and implementation of appropriate health policy is essential to address the rising global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The aim of this study was to evaluate existing health policies for integrated prevention/management of NCDs among Member States of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). We sought to describe policies’ aims and strategies to achieve those aims, and evaluate extent of integration of musculoskeletal conditions as a leading cause of global morbidity.
Methods Policies submitted by OECD Member States in response to a World Health Organization (WHO) NCD Capacity Survey were extracted from the WHO document clearing-house and analysed following a standard protocol. Policies were eligible for inclusion when they described an integrated approach to prevention/management of NCDs. Internal validity was evaluated using a standard instrument (sum score: 0–14; higher scores indicate better quality). Quantitative data were expressed as frequencies, while text data were content-analysed and meta-synthesised using standardised methods.
Results After removal of duplicates and screening, 44 policies from 30 OECD Member States were included. Three key themes emerged to describe the general aims of included policies: system strengthening approaches; improved service delivery; and better population health. Whereas the policies of most countries covered cancer (83.3%), cardiovascular disease (76.6%), diabetes/endocrine disorders (76.6%), respiratory conditions (63.3%) and mental health conditions (63.3%), only half the countries included musculoskeletal health and pain (50.0%) as explicit foci. General strategies were outlined in 42 (95.5%) policies—all were relevant to musculoskeletal health in 12 policies, some relevant in 27 policies and none relevant in three policies. Three key themes described the strategies: general principles for people-centred NCD prevention/management; enhanced service delivery; and system strengthening approaches. Internal validity sum scores ranged from 0 to 13; mean: 7.6 (95% CI 6.5 to 8.7).
Conclusion Relative to other NCDs, musculoskeletal health did not feature as prominently, although many general prevention/management strategies were relevant to musculoskeletal health improvement.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial.
Background
This study describes a low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory test (CST) battery and evaluates its concurrent validity as a screening tool to detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined using quantitative sensory testing (QST).
Method
Three patient cohorts with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS, n = 76), non-specific neck and arm pain (NSNAP, n = 40) and lumbar radicular pain/radiculopathy (LR, n = 26) were included. The CST consisted of 13 tests, each corresponding to a QST parameter and evaluating a broad spectrum of sensory functions using thermal (coins, ice cube, hot test tube) and mechanical (cotton wool, von Frey hairs, tuning fork, toothpicks, thumb and eraser pressure) detection and pain thresholds testing both loss and gain of function. Agreement rate, statistical significance and strength of correlation (phi coefficient) between CST and QST parameters were calculated.
Results
Several CST parameters (cold, warm and mechanical detection thresholds as well as cold and pressure pain thresholds) were significantly correlated with QST, with a majority demonstrating >60% agreement rates and moderate to relatively strong correlations. However, agreement varied among cohorts. Gain of function parameters showed stronger agreement in the CTS and LR cohorts, whereas loss of function parameters had better agreement in the NSNAP cohort. Other CST parameters (16 mN von Frey tests, vibration detection, heat and mechanical pain thresholds, wind-up ratio) did not significantly correlate with QST.
Conclusion
Some of the tests in the CST could help detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined with QST. Parts of the CST could therefore be used as a low-cost screening tool in a clinical setting.
Significance
Quantitative sensory testing, albeit considered the gold standard to evaluate somatosensory dysfunction, requires expensive equipment, specialized examiner training and substantial time commitment which challenges its use in a clinical setting. Our study describes a CST as a low-cost and time-efficient alternative. Some of the CST tools (cold, warm, mechanical detection thresholds; pressure pain thresholds) significantly correlated with the respective QST parameters, suggesting that they may be useful in a clinical setting to detect sensory dysfunction.
Despite normal neurological bedside and electrodiagnostic, some patients with non-specific neck arm pain (NSNAP) have heightened nerve mechanosensitivity upon neurodynamic testing [1, 2]. It remains however unclear whether this is associated with a minor nerve injury. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential differences in somatosensory function among patients with unilateral NSNAP with and without positive neurodynamic tests and healthy controls.
Quantitative sensory testing was performed in 40 patients with unilateral NSNAP; 23 with positive upper limb neurodynamic tests (ULNTPOS) and 17 with negative neurodynamic tests (ULNTNEG). The protocol comprised thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds as well as mechanical pain sensitivity, wind-up ratio and dynamic mechanical allodynia. All parameters were measured in the maximal pain area on the affected side as well as over the corresponding area on the unaffected side. Symptom severity, functional deficits, psychological parameters, quality of life and sleep disturbance were also recorded.
Fifty-seven percent of patients with NSNAP had positive neurodynamic tests despite normal bedside neurological integrity tests and nerve conduction parameters. Clinical profiles did not differ between patient groups. Somatosensory profiling revealed a more pronounced loss of function phenotype in ULNTPOS patients compared to healthy controls. Hyperalgesia (cold, heat and pressure pain) was present bilaterally in both NSNAP group. The ULNTNEG subgroup represented an intermediate phenotype between ULNTPOS patients and healthy controls in both thermal and pressure pain thresholds as well as mechanical detection thresholds.
In conclusion, heightened nerve mechanosensitivity was present in over half of patients with NSNAP. Our data suggest that NSNAP presents as a spectrum with some patients showing signs suggestive of a minor nerve dysfunction.
[1] Elvey RL. Physical evaluation of the peripheral nervous system in disorders of pain and dysfunction. J Hand Ther 1997;10:122-129.
[2] van der Heide B, Bourgoin C, Eils G, Garnevall B, Blackmore M. Test-retest reliability and face validity of a modified neural tissue provocation test in patients with cervicobrachial pain syndrome. J Man Manip Ther 2006;14:30-36.
Relationship of QST measures between low back and leg sites in people with radicular leg pain
(2019)
Background and Aims
Clinicians and researchers often rely on altered neurological integrity tests in the leg to identify radicular pain, however neurological integrity is often not tested in the low back region even in the presence of pain in this region. There have been suggestions that the low back pain itself could be neuropathic in nature in some patients (Baron et al., 2016). This study aims to explore the relationship between quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures in the leg and low back in participants with radicular leg pain to consider if sensory testing should be performed in both areas in clinical practice.
Methods
13 participants (mean age 48.2 SD 13.8, gender (female) 8) with radicular leg pain were recruited from National Health Service spinal clinics in the UK. After assessment with the clinician, a full QST profile was taken from each participant’s affected leg and low back. Z scores were calculated using data from age matched healthy controls. Correlations using Pearson’s if the data was normally distributed or Kendall’s Tau-b if not, were undertaken between QST scores of the low back and leg. Paired t tests or Mann Whitney tests were performed to assess differences in QST scores between the leg and low back regions.
Results
There were no significant correlations (P>0.05) in any of the QST measures between the leg and the low back regions. However, only vibration detection threshold measures showed statistically significant differences between the leg and low back (p<0.001), with the low back region showing greater loss of function (mean -2.84) than the leg (mean -0.61).
Conclusions
Significantly lower vibration thresholds were found in the back compared to the leg. This may suggest some alteration in posterior primary ramus large diameter afferent nerve function, and indicate that the low back pain itself may indeed have a neuropathic component. Our findings suggest that sensory testing of the lumbar spine may be advisable in this group of individuals. The small sample size means that these results must be taken with some caution, however these results warrant further investigation in people with radicular leg pain.
Background:
The evaluation of somatosensory dysfunction is important for diagnostics and may also have implications for prognosis and management. The current standard to evaluate somatosensory dysfunction is quantitative sensory testing (QST), which is expensive and time consuming. This study describes a low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory test battery (CST), and evaluates its concurrent validity compared to QST.
Method: Three patient cohorts with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS, n=86), non-specific neck and arm pain (NSNAP, n=40) and lumbar radicular pain/radiculopathy (LR n=26) were included. The CST consisted of 13 tests, each corresponding to a QST parameter and evaluating a broad spectrum of sensory functions using mechanical and thermal detection and pain thresholds and testing both loss and gain of function. Agreement rate, significance and strength of correlation between CST and QST were calculated.
Results: Several CST parameters (cold and warm detection, cold pain, mechanical detection, mechanical pain for loss of function, pressure pain) were significantly correlated with QST, with a majority demonstrating >60% agreement rates and weak to relatively strong correlations. However, agreement varied among cohorts. Gain of function parameters showed stronger correlation in the CTS and NSNAP cohort, whereas loss of function parameters performed better in the LR cohort. Other CST parameters (vibration detection, heat pain, mechanical pain for gain of function, windup ratio) did not significantly correlate with QST.
Conclusion: Some, but not all tests in the CST battery can detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined with QST. The CST battery may perform better when the somatosensory phenotype is more pronounced.