A novel pyrazole-containing selenium compound modulates the oxidative and nitrergic pathways to reverse the depression-pain syndrome in mice

A Historical Review of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in the “Guides Library”

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2009.novdec01 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 14 (6) ◽

pp. 1-9

Author(s):

Robert J. Barth

Keyword(s):

Differential Diagnosis ◽

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽

Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy ◽

International Association ◽

Historical Review ◽

Pain Syndrome ◽

Sixth Edition

Abstract Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a controversial, ambiguous, unreliable, and unvalidated concept that, for these very reasons, has been justifiably ignored in the “AMA Guides Library” that includes the AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), the AMA Guides Newsletter, and other publications in this suite. But because of the surge of CRPS-related medicolegal claims and the mission of the AMA Guides to assist those who adjudicate such claims, a discussion of CRPS is warranted, especially because of what some believe to be confusing recommendations regarding causation. In 1994, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) introduced a newly invented concept, CRPS, to replace the concepts of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (replaced by CRPS I) and causalgia (replaced by CRPS II). An article in the November/December 1997 issue of The Guides Newsletter introduced CRPS and presciently recommended that evaluators avoid the IASP protocol in favor of extensive differential diagnosis based on objective findings. A series of articles in The Guides Newsletter in 2006 extensively discussed the shortcomings of CRPS. The AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, notes that the inherent lack of injury-relatedness for the nonvalidated concept of CRPS creates a dilemma for impairment evaluators. Focusing on impairment evaluation and not on injury-relatedness would greatly simplify use of the AMA Guides.

Download Full-text

Chronic Pain: Fundamental Scientific Considerations, Specifically for Legal Claims

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2013.janfeb01 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

pp. 1-18 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Robert J. Barth

Keyword(s):

Health Outcomes ◽

Pain Perception ◽

Driving Forces ◽

Psychological Treatment ◽

Dominant Role ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

General Medicine ◽

Pain Syndrome ◽

Problematic Relationship

Abstract Scientific findings have indicated that psychological and social factors are the driving forces behind most chronic benign pain presentations, especially in a claim context, and are relevant to at least three of the AMA Guides publications: AMA Guides to Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, AMA Guides to Work Ability and Return to Work, and AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. The author reviews and summarizes studies that have identified the dominant role of financial, psychological, and other non–general medicine factors in patients who report low back pain. For example, one meta-analysis found that compensation results in an increase in pain perception and a reduction in the ability to benefit from medical and psychological treatment. Other studies have found a correlation between the level of compensation and health outcomes (greater compensation is associated with worse outcomes), and legal systems that discourage compensation for pain produce better health outcomes. One study found that, among persons with carpal tunnel syndrome, claimants had worse outcomes than nonclaimants despite receiving more treatment; another examined the problematic relationship between complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and compensation and found that cases of CRPS are dominated by legal claims, a disparity that highlights the dominant role of compensation. Workers’ compensation claimants are almost never evaluated for personality disorders or mental illness. The article concludes with recommendations that evaluators can consider in individual cases.

Download Full-text

Peripheral Nerve and Brachial Plexus Impairment, AMA Guides, Sixth Edition

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.marapr01 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (2) ◽

pp. 3-5

Author(s):

James B. Talmage ◽

Jay Blaisdell

Keyword(s):

Peripheral Nerve ◽

Brachial Plexus ◽

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽

Lower Extremities ◽

Pain Syndrome ◽

Upper Extremities ◽

Motor Deficits ◽

Type I ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Nerve Entrapments

Abstract Physicians use a variety of methodologies within the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, to rate nerve injuries depending on the type of injury and location of the nerve. Traumatic injuries that cause impairment to the peripheral or brachial plexus nerves are rated using Section 15.4e, Peripheral Nerve and Brachial Plexus Impairment, for upper extremities and Section 16.4c, Peripheral Nerve Rating Process, for lower extremities. Verifiable nerve lesions that incite the symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome, type II (similar to the former concept of causalgia), also are rated in these sections. Nerve entrapments, which are not isolated traumatic events, are rated using the methodology in Section 15.4f, Entrapment Neuropathy. Type I complex regional pain syndrome is rated using Section 15.5, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome for upper extremities or Section 16.5, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome for lower extremities. The method for grading the sensory and motor deficits is analogous to the method described in previous editions of AMA Guides. Rating the permanent impairment of the peripheral nerves or brachial plexus is similar to the methodology used in the diagnosis-based impairment scheme with the exceptions that the physical examination grade modifier is never used to adjust the default rating and the names of individual nerves or plexus trunks, as opposed to the names of diagnoses, appear in the far left column of the rating grids.

Download Full-text

Errata

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2008.marapr02 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 13 (2) ◽

pp. 5-5

Keyword(s):

Psychotic Disorders ◽

Pain Syndrome ◽

Vestibular Disorders ◽

Loss Of Function ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Neurologic Disorders ◽

Upper And Lower Extremities ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Extensive List ◽

Mental And Behavioral Disorders

Abstract Although most chapters in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, instruct evaluators to perform impairment ratings by first assigning a diagnosis-based class and then assigning a grade within that class, Chapter 13, The Central and Peripheral Nervous System, continues to use a methodology similar to that of the fifth edition. The latter was criticized for duplicating materials that were presented in other chapters and for producing different ratings, so the revision of Chapter 13 attempts to maintain consistency between this chapter and those that address mental and behavioral disorders, loss of function in upper and lower extremities, loss of bowel control, and bladder and sexual function. A table titled Summary of Chapters Used to Rate Various Neurologic Disorders directs physicians to the relevant chapters (ie, instead of Chapter 13) to consult in rating neurologic disorders; the extensive list of conditions that should be addressed in other chapters includes but is not limited to radiculopathy, plexus injuries and other plexopathies, focal neuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, visual and vestibular disorders, and a range of primary mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders. The article comments in detail on sections of this chapter, identifies changes in the sixth edition, and provide guidance regarding use of the new edition, resulting in less duplication and greater consistency.

Download Full-text

Challenges in the Diagnostic Conceptualization of CRPS-1 (Formerly Conceptualized as RSD)

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2006.marapr01 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 1-3, 9-12

Author(s):

Robert J. Barth ◽

Tom W. Bohr

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽

Somatoform Disorders ◽

International Association ◽

Pain Syndrome ◽

Somatoform Disorder ◽

Syndrome Type ◽

Previous Issue

Abstract From the previous issue, this article continues a discussion of the potentially confusing aspects of the diagnostic formulation for complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), the relevance of these issues for a proposed future protocol, and recommendations for clinical practice. IASP is working to resolve the contradictions in its approach to CRPS-1 diagnosis, but it continues to include the following criterion: “[c]ontinuing pain, which is disproportionate to any inciting event.” This language only perpetuates existing issues with current definitions, specifically the overlap between the IASP criteria for CRPS-1 and somatoform disorders, overlap with the guidelines for malingering, and self-contradiction with respect to the suggestion of injury-relatedness. The authors propose to overcome the last of these by revising the criterion: “[c]omplaints of pain in the absence of any identifiable injury that could credibly account for the complaints.” Similarly, the overlap with somatoform disorders could be reworded: “The possibility of a somatoform disorder has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a somatoform scenario.” The overlap with malingering could be addressed in this manner: “The possibility of malingering has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a malingering scenario.” The article concludes with six recommendations, and a sidebar discusses rating impairment for CRPS-1 (with explicit instructions not to use the pain chapter for this purpose).

Download Full-text

Comparative Analysis: The State of Colorado Study, Part II

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2004.marapr01 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham ◽

Kathryn Mueller ◽

Douglas Van Zet ◽

Debra J. Northrup ◽

Edward B. Whitney ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Daily Living ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Pain Syndrome ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Clinical Assessments ◽

Physician Judgment ◽

History Of ◽

Key Terms ◽

Causation Analysis ◽

Work Interference

Abstract [Continued from the January/February 2004 issue of The Guides Newsletter.] To understand discrepancies in reviewers’ ratings of impairments based on different editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), users can usefully study the history of the revisions as successive editions attempted to provide a comprehensive, valid, reliable, unbiased, and evidence-based system. Some shortcomings of earlier editions have been addressed in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, but problems remain with each edition, largely because of the limited scientific evidence available. In the context of the history of the different editions of the AMA Guides and their development, the authors discuss and contextualize a number of key terms and principles including the following: definitions of impairment and normal; activities of daily living; maximum medical improvement; impairment percentages; conversion of regional impairments; combining impairments; pain and other subjective complaints; physician judgment; and causation analysis; finally, the authors note that impairment is not synonymous with disability or work interference. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, contrasts impairment evaluations and independent medical evaluations (this was not done in previous editions) and discusses impairment evaluations, rules for evaluations, and report standards. Upper extremity and lower extremity impairment evaluations are discussed in terms of clinical assessments and rating processes, analyzing important changes between editions and problematic areas (eg, complex regional pain syndrome).

Download Full-text