Dataset Information

A novel tool for the assessment of pain: validation in low back pain.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adequate pain assessment is critical for evaluating the efficacy of analgesic treatment in clinical practice and during the development of new therapies. Yet the currently used scores of global pain intensity fail to reflect the diversity of pain manifestations and the complexity of underlying biological mechanisms. We have developed a tool for a standardized assessment of pain-related symptoms and signs that differentiates pain phenotypes independent of etiology.

Methods and findings

Using a structured interview (16 questions) and a standardized bedside examination (23 tests), we prospectively assessed symptoms and signs in 130 patients with peripheral neuropathic pain caused by diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or radicular low back pain (LBP), and in 57 patients with non-neuropathic (axial) LBP. A hierarchical cluster analysis revealed distinct association patterns of symptoms and signs (pain subtypes) that characterized six subgroups of patients with neuropathic pain and two subgroups of patients with non-neuropathic pain. Using a classification tree analysis, we identified the most discriminatory assessment items for the identification of pain subtypes. We combined these six interview questions and ten physical tests in a pain assessment tool that we named Standardized Evaluation of Pain (StEP). We validated StEP for the distinction between radicular and axial LBP in an independent group of 137 patients. StEP identified patients with radicular pain with high sensitivity (92%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 83%-97%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI 89%-100%). The diagnostic accuracy of StEP exceeded that of a dedicated screening tool for neuropathic pain and spinal magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, we were able to reproduce subtypes of radicular and axial LBP, underscoring the utility of StEP for discerning distinct constellations of symptoms and signs.

Conclusions

We present a novel method of identifying pain subtypes that we believe reflect underlying pain mechanisms. We demonstrate that this new approach to pain assessment helps separate radicular from axial back pain. Beyond diagnostic utility, a standardized differentiation of pain subtypes that is independent of disease etiology may offer a unique opportunity to improve targeted analgesic treatment.

SUBMITTER: Scholz J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2661253 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A novel tool for the assessment of pain: validation in low back pain.

Scholz Joachim J Mannion Richard J RJ Hord Daniela E DE Griffin Robert S RS Rawal Bhupendra B Zheng Hui H Scoffings Daniel D Phillips Amanda A Guo Jianli J Laing Rodney J C RJ Abdi Salahadin S Decosterd Isabelle I Woolf Clifford J CJ

PLoS medicine 20090407 4

<h4>Background</h4>Adequate pain assessment is critical for evaluating the efficacy of analgesic treatment in clinical practice and during the development of new therapies. Yet the currently used scores of global pain intensity fail to reflect the diversity of pain manifestations and the complexity of underlying biological mechanisms. We have developed a tool for a standardized assessment of pain-related symptoms and signs that differentiates pain phenotypes independent of etiology.<h4>Methods a ...[more]

PMID: 19360087

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionExercise therapy is the most recommended treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). Effect sizes for exercises are usually small to moderate and could be due to the heterogeneity of people presenting with LBP. Thus, if patients could be better matched to exercise based on individual factors, then the effects of treatment could be greater. A recently published study provided evidence of better outcomes when patients are matched to the appropriate exercise type. The study demonstrated that a 15-item questionnaire, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ), could identify patients who responded best to one of the two exercise approaches for LBP (motor control and graded activity). The primary aim of the current study isill be to evaluate whether preidentified baseline characteristics, including the LSIQ, can modify the response to two of the most common exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. Secondary aims include an economic evaluations with a cost-effectiveness analysis.Methods and analysisParticipants (n=414) will be recruited by primary care professionals and randomised (1:1) to receive motor control exercises or graded activity. Participants will undergo 12 sessions of exercise therapy over an 8-week period. The primary outcome will be physical function at 2 months using the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will be pain intensity, function and quality of life measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Potential effect modifiers will be the LSIQ, self-efficacy, coping strategies, kinesiophobia and measures of nociceptive pain and central sensitisation. We will construct linear mixed models with terms for participants (fixed), treatment group, predictor (potential effect modifier), treatment group×predictor (potential effect modifier), physiotherapists, treatment group×physiotherapists and baseline score for the dependent variable.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrate Research Ethics Board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04283409.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Pain catastrophizing has been found to be an important predictor of disability and days lost from work in patients with low back pain. The most commonly used outcome measure to identify pain catastrophizing is the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). To enable the use of the PCS in clinical settings and research in Norwegian speaking patients, the PCS had to be translated. The purpose of this study was therefore to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PCS into Norwegian and to test internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility of the PCS. METHODS: The PCS was translated before it was tested for psychometric properties. Patients with subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain aged 18?years or more were recruited from primary and secondary care. Validity of the PCS was assessed by evaluating data quality (missing, floor and ceiling effects), principal components analysis, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and construct validity (Spearman's rho). Reproducibility analyses included standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, limits of agreement, and intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: A total of 38 men and 52 women (n?=?90), with a mean (SD) age of 47.6 (11.7) years, were included for baseline testing. A subgroup of 61 patients was included for test-retest assessments. The Norwegian PCS was easy-to-comprehend. The principal components analysis supported a three-factor structure, internal consistency was satisfactory for the PCS total score (? 0.90) and the subscales rumination (? 0.83) and helplessness (? 0.86), but not for the subscale magnification (? 0.53). In total, 86% of the correlation analyses were in accordance with predefined hypothesis. The reliability analyses showed intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.74?-?0.87 for the PCS total score and subscales. The PCS total score (range 0-52 points) showed a standard error of measurement of 4.6 points and a 95% minimum detectable change estimate of 12.8 points. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian PCS total score showed acceptable psychometric properties in terms of comprehensibility, consistency, construct validity, and reproducibility when applied to patients with subacute or chronic LBP from different clinical settings. Our study support the use of the PCS total score for clinical or research purposes identifying or evaluating pain catastrophizing.

Dataset Information

A novel tool for the assessment of pain: validation in low back pain.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

A novel tool for the assessment of pain: validation in low back pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets