Applying modern pain neuroscience in clinical practice: criteria for the classification of central sensitization pain

Background: The awareness is growing that central sensitization is of prime importance for the assessment and management of chronic pain, but its classification is challenging clinically since no gold standard method of assessment exists. Objectives: Designing the first set of classification criteria for the classification of central sensitization pain. Methods: A body of evidence from original research papers was used by 18 pain experts from 7 different countries to design the first classification criteria for central sensitization pain. Results: It is proposed that the classification of central sensitization pain entails 2 major steps: the exclusion of neuropathic pain and the differential classification of nociceptive versus central sensitization pain. For the former, the International Association for the study of Pain diagnostic criteria are available for diagnosing or excluding neuropathic pain. For the latter, clinicians are advised to screen their patients for 3 major classification criteria, and use them to complete the classification algorithm for each individual patient with chronic pain. The first and obligatory criterion entails disproportionate pain, implying that the severity of pain and related reported or perceived disability are disproportionate to the nature and extent of injury or pathology (i.e., tissue damage or structural impairments). The 2 remaining criteria are 1) the presence of diffuse pain distribution, allodynia, and hyperalgesia; and 2) hypersensitivity of senses unrelated to the musculoskeletal system (defined as a score of at least 40 on the Central Sensitization Inventory). Limitations: Although based on direct and indirect research findings, the classification algorithm requires experimental testing in future studies. Conclusion: Clinicians can use the proposed classification algorithm for differentiating neuropathic, nociceptive, and central sensitization pain

Power grip, pinch grip, manual muscle testing or thenar atrophy - which should be assessed as a motor outcome after carpal tunnel decompression? A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Objective assessment of motor function is frequently used to evaluate outcome after surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However a range of outcome measures are used and there appears to be no consensus on which measure of motor function effectively captures change. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the methods used to assess motor function in randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions for CTS. A secondary aim was to evaluate which instruments reflect clinical change and are psychometrically robust.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The bibliographic databases Medline, AMED and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions for CTS. Data on instruments used, methods of assessment and results of tests of motor function was extracted by two independent reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-two studies were retrieved which included performance based assessments of motor function. Nineteen studies assessed power grip dynamometry, fourteen studies used both power and pinch grip dynamometry, eight used manual muscle testing and five assessed the presence or absence of thenar atrophy. Several studies used multiple tests of motor function. Two studies included both power and pinch strength and reported descriptive statistics enabling calculation of effect sizes to compare the relative responsiveness of grip and pinch strength within study samples. The study findings suggest that tip pinch is more responsive than lateral pinch or power grip up to 12 weeks following surgery for CTS.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although used most frequently and known to be reliable, power and key pinch dynamometry are not the most valid or responsive tools for assessing motor outcome up to 12 weeks following surgery for CTS. Tip pinch dynamometry more specifically targets the thenar musculature and appears to be more responsive. Manual muscle testing, which in theory is most specific to the thenar musculature, may be more sensitive if assessed using a hand held dynamometer – the Rotterdam Intrinsic Handheld Myometer. However further research is needed to evaluate its reliability and responsiveness and establish the most efficient and psychometrically robust method of evaluating motor function following surgery for CTS.</p

Applying modern pain neuroscience in clinical practice: criteria for the classification of central sensitization pain

Background: The awareness is growing that central sensitization is of prime importance for the assessment and management of chronic pain, but its classification is challenging clinically since no gold standard method of assessment exists. Objectives: Designing the first set of classification criteria for the classification of central sensitization pain. Methods: A body of evidence from original research papers was used by 18 pain experts from 7 different countries to design the first classification criteria for central sensitization pain. Results: It is proposed that the classification of central sensitization pain entails 2 major steps: the exclusion of neuropathic pain and the differential classification of nociceptive versus central sensitization pain. For the former, the International Association for the Study of Pain diagnostic criteria are available for diagnosing or excluding neuropathic pain. For the latter, clinicians are advised to screen their patients for 3 major classification criteria, and use them to complete the classification algorithm for each individual patient with chronic pain. The first and obligatory criterion entails disproportionate pain, implying that the severity of pain and related reported or perceived disability are disproportionate to the nature and extent of injury or pathology (i.e., tissue damage or structural impairments). The 2 remaining criteria are 1) the presence of diffuse pain distribution, allodynia, and hyperalgesia; and 2) hypersensitivity of senses unrelated to the musculoskeletal system (defined as a score of at least 40 on the Central Sensitization Inventory). Limitations: Although based on direct and indirect research findings, the classification algorithm requires experimental testing in future studies. Conclusion: Clinicians can use the proposed classification algorithm for differentiating neuropathic, nociceptive, and central sensitization pain. Key words: Chronic pain, diagnosis, hypersensitivity, classification, neuropathic pai