Investigating the validity of the DN4 in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain

Neuropathic pain is clinically described as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the Dutch version of the DN4, in a cross-sectional multicentre design, as a screening tool for detecting a neuropathic pain component in a large consecutive, not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome, population of patients with chronic pain. Patients’ pain was classified by two independent (pain-)physicians as the gold standard. The analysis was initially performed on the outcomes of those patients (n = 228 out of 291) in whom both physicians agreed in their pain classification. Compared to the gold standard the DN4 had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 76%. The DN4-symptoms (seven interview items) solely resulted in a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 67%. For the DN4-signs (three examination items) it was respectively 75% and 75%. In conclusion, because it seems that the DN4 helps to identify a neuropathic pain component in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain in a moderate way, a comprehensive (physical-) examination by the physician is still obligate

Avoiding Catch-22:Validating the PainDETECT in a in a population of patients with chronic pain

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain is defined as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system and is a major therapeutic challenge. Several screening tools have been developed to help physicians detect patients with neuropathic pain. These have typically been validated in populations pre-stratified for neuropathic pain, leading to a so called "Catch-22 situation:" "a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule". The validity of screening tools needs to be proven in patients with pain who were not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome: neuropathic pain or non-neuropathic pain. This study aims to assess the validity of the Dutch PainDETECT (PainDETECT-Dlv) in a large population of patients with chronic pain. METHODS: A cross-sectional multicentre design was used to assess PainDETECT-Dlv validity. Included where patients with low back pain radiating into the leg(s), patients with neck-shoulder-arm pain and patients with pain due to a suspected peripheral nerve damage. Patients' pain was classified as having a neuropathic pain component (yes/no) by two experienced physicians ("gold standard"). Physician opinion based on the Grading System was a secondary comparison. RESULTS: In total, 291 patients were included. Primary analysis was done on patients where both physicians agreed upon the pain classification (n = 228). Compared to the physician's classification, PainDETECT-Dlv had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 55%, versus the Grading System it achieved 74 and 46%. CONCLUSION: Despite its internal consistency and test-retest reliability the PainDETECT-Dlv is not an effective screening tool for a neuropathic pain component in a population of patients with chronic pain because of its moderate sensitivity and low specificity. Moreover, the indiscriminate use of the PainDETECT-Dlv as a surrogate for clinical assessment should be avoided in daily clinical practice as well as in (clinical-) research. Catch-22 situations in the validation of screening tools can be prevented by not pre-stratifying the patients on basis of the target outcome before inclusion in a validation study for screening instruments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered prospectively in the Dutch National Trial Register: NTR 3030

Investigating the validity of the DN4 in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain

Neuropathic pain is clinically described as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the Dutch version of the DN4, in a cross-sectional multicentre design, as a screening tool for detecting a neuropathic pain component in a large consecutive, not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome, population of patients with chronic pain. Patients' pain was classified by two independent (pain-)physicians as the gold standard. The analysis was initially performed on the outcomes of those patients (n = 228 out of 291) in whom both physicians agreed in their pain classification. Compared to the gold standard the DN4 had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 76%. The DN4-symptoms (seven interview items) solely resulted in a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 67%. For the DN4-signs (three examination items) it was respectively 75% and 75%. In conclusion, because it seems that the DN4 helps to identify a neuropathic pain component in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain in a moderate way, a comprehensive (physical-) examination by the physician is still obligate

Which patient-specific and surgical characteristics influence postoperative pain after THA in a fast-track setting?

Abstract Background In our hospital a fast-track setting including a multimodal pain protocol is used for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite this multimodal pain protocol there is still a large range in reported postoperative pain between patients, which hinders mobilization and rehabilitation postoperatively. The goal of this study was to identify which patient-specific and surgical characteristics influence postoperative pain after THA in a fast-track setting. Methods All 74 patients with osteoarthritis of the hip who underwent primary THA procedure by anterior supine intermuscular approach between November 2012 and January 2014 were included in this prospective cohort study. The protocol for pain medication was standardized. Postoperative pain determined with the Numeric Rating Score was collected at 17 standardized moments. Linear mixed models were used to examine potential patient-specific and surgical factors associated with increased postoperative pain. Results Pain patterns differed substantially across individuals. Adjusted for other variables in the model, preoperative use of pain medication (regression coefficient 0.78 (95% CI 0.28–1.26); p = 0.005) and preoperative neuropathic pain scored by DN4 (regression coefficient 0.68 (95% CI 0.15–1.20); p = 0.02) were the only factors significantly associated with higher postoperative pain scores. Conclusions The knowledge of which factors are associated with higher postoperative pain scores after THA in a fast-track setting may help optimizing perioperative postoperative pain management and preoperative education of these patients. Trial registration The study was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry under identifier ISRCTN15422220 (date of registration: July 25, 2017)

1H-NMR metabolic profiling of cerebrospinal fluid in patients with complex regional pain syndrome-related dystonia.

In complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)-related dystonia, compelling evidence points to the involvement of the central nervous system, but the underpinning pathobiology is still unclear. Thus, to enable a hypothesis-free, unbiased view of the problem and to obtain new insight into the pathobiology of dystonia in CRPS, we applied an exploratory metabolomics analysis of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with CRPS-related dystonia. (1)H-NMR spectroscopy in combination with multivariate modeling were used to investigate metabolic profiles of a total of 105 CSF samples collected from patients with CRPS-related dystonia and controls. We found a significantly different metabolic profile of CSF in CRPS patients compared to controls. The differences were already reflected in the first two principal components of the principal component analysis model, which is an indication that the variance associated with CRPS is stronger than variance caused by such classical confounders as gender, age, or individual differences. A supervised analysis generated a strong model pinpointing the most important metabolites contributed to the metabolic signature of patients with CRPS-related dystonia. From the set of identified discriminators, the most relevant metabolites were 2-keto-isovalerate, glucose, glutamine, and lactate, which all showed increased concentrations, and urea, which showed decreased concentration in CRPS subjects. Our findings point at a catabolic state in chronic CRPS patients with dystonia that is likely associated with inflammation

The area under the curve and the sensitivity / specificity at the optimal cut-off point of the DN4 under the condition of equal costs of misclassification to classify a neuropathic pain component by the classification and the grading system of the physicians.

<p>The area under the curve and the sensitivity / specificity at the optimal cut-off point of the DN4 under the condition of equal costs of misclassification to classify a neuropathic pain component by the classification and the grading system of the physicians.</p

Loading factors of the items of the DN4 according to the rotated component matrix factor analysis.

<p>Loading factors of the items of the DN4 according to the rotated component matrix factor analysis.</p

The median (IQR) and percentages of the items of the DN4 by physicians agreement of a NePC.

<p>The median (IQR) and percentages of the items of the DN4 by physicians agreement of a NePC.</p

Clinical and socio-demographic characteristics of the patients related to physicians agreement for the existence of a neuropathic pain component.

<p>Clinical and socio-demographic characteristics of the patients related to physicians agreement for the existence of a neuropathic pain component.</p

Flow diagram for the outcome of the physicians assessment and the NeuPSIG grading system.

<p>Present NePC: present neuropathic pain component; Undetermined: Both physicians disagree with each other about the existence of a neuropathic pain component; Absent NePC: absent neuropathic pain component; n = total number of patients in analysis PhA: Physicians assessment; GS: Neuropathic pain special interest group grading system (missing pain classification based on the grading system: n = 8).</p