Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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 .

SUBMITTER: Timmerman H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6026336 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Timmerman Hans H Wolff André P AP Bronkhorst Ewald M EM Wilder-Smith Oliver H G OHG Schenkels Marcel J MJ van Dasselaar Nick T NT Huygen Frank J P M FJPM Steegers Monique A H MAH Vissers Kris C P KCP

BMC neurology 20180629 1

<h4>Background</h4>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 o ...[more]

PMID: 29958535

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe pharmacological management of chronic low back pain (LBP) is complex. The World Health Organisation recommends a laddered approach to pain medication usage. The PainDETECT questionnaire distinguishes between neuropathic pain (NeP), nociceptive pain (NoP), and ambiguous pain. By elucidating the difference in medication efficacy between these groups, clinicians can provide a tailored treatment plan to manage patient's pain. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between pharmacological treatments, pain categorizations, and medication efficacy as reported by patients.MethodsA secondary retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was conducted involving 318 consecutively recruited patients, aged 18 years and above, who completed PainDETECT, medication history and patient reported medication efficacy questionnaires. Medication history was categorized into four lines of treatment: first line (paracetamol ± non-prescribed anti-inflammatories), second line (prescribed anti-inflammatories), third line (anticonvulsants/neuromodulators) and fourth line (opioids). Medication efficacy was measured using a three-point Likert scale: effective (+2), somewhat effective (+1), no effect (0).FindingsThe study included 120, 50, 54 and 94 patients on first line, second line, third line and fourth line treatment, respectively. The NeP group had higher mean numerical rating scale (NRS) compared to NoP group in all four lines of treatment (8.10 ± 1.59 vs. 5.47± 2.27, p < 0.001, 8.64± 1.43 vs. 5.52± 1.86, p < 0.001, 8.00± 1.07 vs. 6.37± 2.39, p < 0.01, and 8.05± 1.73 vs. 7.2± 1.29, p < 0.05). When confounding for severity of LBP as measured by NRS, the distribution of medication efficacy significantly differed amongst the NeP, ambiguous and NoP groups in patients undergoing fourth line pharmacological treatment (r2 = 8.623, p < 0.05). The NoP group exhibited significantly higher medication efficacy compared to the NeP group (U = 14.038, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in medication efficacy across the pain classifications for first, second- and third-line treatment.InterpretationOpioids was the only line of treatment more effective in targeting NoP, as determined by the PainDETECT questionnaire, compared to NeP. This pioneering study illustrates the complex nature of pharmacological management for chronic LBP. It underscores the importance of tailoring pharmacological treatment plans to fit individual pain profiles and expectations instead of adopting a blanket approach to pain management.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with neuropathic-like symptoms had more unfavourable pain features than people with nociceptive. Moreover, deficient conditioned pain modulation is common in people with neuropathic-like symptoms. PainDETECT questionnaire have been used to assess the central sensitisation sign and symptoms. However, whether the painDETECT questionnaire can identify the conditioned pain modulation's impairment is still unknown. Therefore, the current study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the painDETECT questionnaire in detecting the impairment of conditioned pain modulation in people with musculoskeletal pain.MethodsWe conducted a diagnostic accuracy comparing the painDETECT questionnaire (index method) with the cold pressor test, the psychophysical test used to assess the conditioned pain modulation (reference standard). We determined diagnostic accuracy by calculating sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likely hood ratios.ResultsWe retrospectively enrolled 308 people with musculoskeletal pain in outpatient departments. Most participants were female (n 20 = 220, 71.4%) and had a mean age of 52.2 (± 15.0) years. One hundred seventy-three (56.1%) participants were classified as nociceptive pain, 69 (22.4%) as unclear, and 66 (21.4%) as neuropathic-like symptoms. According to the cold pressor test, 60 (19.4%) participants presented impairment of conditioned pain modulation. The cutoff point of 12 of the painDETECT questionnaire showed values of diagnostic accuracy below 70% compared to the cold pressor test, except for a negative predictive value [76.9 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 71.7 to 81.5]. The cutoff point 19 showed high specificity (78.6%, 95% CI 73.0 to 83.5), high negative predictive value (80.5%, 95% CI 78.1 to 82.7), and accuracy of 67.5% compared to the cold pressor test.ConclusionThe painDETECT questionnaire seems valuable for ruling out people with musculoskeletal pain and impairment of conditioned pain modulation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence is emerging that pain in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) exists without underlying inflammation. Our objective was to evaluate the prognostic value of pain classification at treatment initiation using the painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ). Outcomes were change in DAS28-CRP and RAMRIS synovitis score. METHODS:RA patients initiating a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) or initiating/ switching a biological agent were included. Follow-up time was 4 months. Clinical examination, imaging (MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI)), and patient-reported outcomes were undertaken. The PDQ was used to differentiate pain mechanisms. Mean change (95% CI) was calculated using ANCOVA. Multivariable regression models were used to determine a prognostic value. RESULTS:A total of 102 patients were included; 75 were enrolled for MRI. Mean changes in baseline variables were greatest in the high PDQ classification group (> 18), while limited in the intermediate group (13-18). The 12 patients with high baseline PDQ score all changed pain classification group. No prognostic value of PDQ pain classification was found in relation to change of DAS28-CRP, RAMRIS score, or VAS pain. In the unadjusted model, RAMRIS score at baseline was associated with change in DAS28-CRP. The exploratory variables of DCE-MRI did not differ from other inflammatory variables. CONCLUSIONS:In RA patients a high PDQ score (non-nociceptive pain) at baseline was not associated with worse outcomes, in fact these patients had numerically greater improvement in DAS28-CRP. However, pain classification by PDQ was not independently associated with change in DAS28-CRP, RAMRIS score, or VAS pain in the prognostic models. Furthermore, patients classified with a high baseline PDQ score changed pain classification group. Patients with unclear pain mechanism had reduced numerically treatment response. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of the Capital of Denmark April 18 2013; identification number H-3-2013-049 .

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough numerous studies have looked at the numeric rating scale (NRS) in chronic pain patients and several studies have evaluated objective pain scales, no known studies have assessed an objective pain scale for use in the evaluation of adult chronic pain patients in the outpatient setting. Subjective scales require patients to convert a subjective feeling into a quantitative number. Meanwhile, objective pain scales utilize, for the most part, the patient's behavioral component as observed by the provider in addition to the patient's subjective perception of pain. This study aims to examine the reliability and validity of an objective Chronic Pain Behavioral Pain Scale for Adults (CBPS) as compared to the traditional NRS.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, patients were assessed before and after an interventional pain procedure by a researcher and a nurse using the CBPS and the NRS. Interrater reliability, concurrent validity, and construct validity were analyzed.ResultsInterrater reliability revealed a fair-good agreement between the nurse's and researcher's CBPS scores, weighted kappa values of 0.59 and 0.65, preprocedure and postprocedure, respectively. Concurrent validity showed low positive correlation for the preprocedure measurements, 0.34 (95% CI 0.16-0.50) and 0.47 (95% CI 0.31-0.61), and moderate positive correlation for the postprocedure measurements, 0.68 (95% CI 0.56-0.77) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.55-0.77), for the nurses and researchers, respectively. Construct validity demonstrated an equally average significant reduction in pain from preprocedure to postprocedure, CBPS and NRS median (IQR) scores preprocedure (4 (2-6) and 6 (4-8)) and postprocedure (1 (0-2) and 3 (0-5)), p < 0.001. Discussion. The CBPS has been shown to have interrater reliability, concurrent validity, and construct validity. However, further testing is needed to show its potential benefits over other pain scales and its effectiveness in treating patients with chronic pain over a long-term. This study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov with National Clinical Trial Number NCT02882971.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets