Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (10)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Other (1)
Keywords
- Cervical radiculopathy (2)
- Classification (2)
- Delphi technique (1)
- Neck-arm pain (1)
- Neuropathic pain (1)
- Neuropathic pain grading scale (1)
- Radicular pain (1)
- Radiculopathy (1)
- Sciatica (1)
- Somatic referred pain (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (14)
- Fakultät AuL (1)
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.
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 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.
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.
Background: The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been used as a tool to characterize sensory abnormalities in patients with persistent pain. This study investigated whether the self-reported sensory descriptors of patients with painful cervical radiculopathy (CxRAD) and patients with fibromyalgia (FM), as characterized by responses to verbal sensory descriptors from PD-Q (sensitivity to light touch, cold, heat, slight pressure, feeling of numbness in the main area of pain), were associated with the corresponding sensory parameters as demonstrated by quantitative sensory testing (QST).
Methods: Twenty-three patients with CxRAD (eight women, 46.3 ± 9.6 years) and 22 patients with FM (20 women, 46.1 ± 11.5 years) completed the PD-Q. Standardized QST of dynamic mechanical allodynia, cold and heat pain thresholds, pressure pain thresholds, mechanical and vibration detection thresholds, was recorded from the maximal pain area. Comparative QST data from 31 age-matched healthy controls (HCs; 15 women) were obtained.
Results: Patients with CxRAD demonstrated a match between their self-reported descriptors and QST parameters for all sensory parameters except for sensitivity to light touch, and these matches were statistically significant compared with HC data (p ≤ 0.006). The FM group demonstrated discrepancies between the PD-Q and QST sensory phenotypes for all sensory descriptors, indicating that the self-reported sensory descriptors did not consistently match the QST parameters (p = ≤0.017).
Conclusion: Clinicians and researchers should be cautious about relying on PD-Q as a stand-alone screening tool to determine sensory abnormalities in patients with FM.
Identification of differences in clinical presentation and underlying pain mechanisms may assist the classification of patients with neck–arm pain which is important for the provision of targeted best evidence based management. The aim of this study was to: (i) assess the inter-examiner agreement in using specific systems to classify patients with cervical radiculopathy and patients with non-specific neck–arm pain associated with heightened nerve mechanosensitivity (NSNAP); (ii) assess the agreement between two clinical examiners and two clinical experts in classifying these patients, and (iii) assess the diagnostic accuracy of the two clinical examiners. Forty patients with unilateral neck–arm pain were examined by two clinicians and classified into (i) cervical radiculopathy, (ii) NSNAP, (iii) other. The classifications were compared to those made independently by two experts, based on a review of patients' clinical assessment notes. The experts' opinion was used as the reference criterion to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examiners in classifying each patient group. There was an 80% agreement between clinical examiners, and between experts and 70%–80% between clinical examiners and experts in classifying patients with cervical radiculopathy (kappa between 0.41 and 0.61). Agreement was 72.5%–80% in classifying patients with NSNAP (kappa between 0.43 and 0.52). Clinical examiners' diagnostic accuracy was high (radiculopathy: sensitivity 79%–84%; specificity 76%–81%; NSNAP: sensitivity 78%–100%; specificity 71%–81%). Compared to expert opinion, clinicians were able to identify patients with cervical radiculopathy and patients with NSNAP in 80% of cases, our data supporting the reliability of these classification systems.
Differentiating nociceptive and neuropathic components of clinical pain presentations matters!
(2016)
Background
Establishing a set of uniform classification criteria (CC) for cervical radiculopathy (CR) is required to aid future recruitment of homogenous populations to clinical trials.
Objectives
To establish expert informed consensus on CC for CR.
Design
A pre-defined four round e-Delphi study in accordance with the guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies.
Methods
Individuals with a background in physiotherapy who had authored two or more peer-reviewed publications on CR were invited to participate. The initial round asked opinions on CC for CR. Content analysis was performed on round one output and a list of discrete items were generated forming the round two survey. In rounds two to four, participants were asked to rate the level of importance of each item on a six-point Likert scale. Data were analysed descriptively using median, interquartile range and percentage agreement. Items reaching pre-defined consensus criteria were carried forward to the next round. Items remaining after the fourth round constituted expert consensus on CC for CR.
Results
Twelve participants participated with one drop out. The final round identified one inclusion CC and 12 exclusion CC. The inclusion CC that remained achieved 82% agreement and was a cluster criterion consisting of radicular pain with arm pain worse than neck pain; paraesthesia or numbness and/or weakness and/or altered reflex; MRI confirmed nerve root compression compatible with clinical findings.
Conclusions
The CC identified can be used to inform eligibility criteria for future CR trials although caution should be practiced as consensus on measurement tools requires further investigation.