Agreement and Correlation Between the Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions Neuropathic Pain Screening Tools in Subjects With Low Back–Related Leg Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 196-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Walsh ◽  
Martin I. Rabey ◽  
Toby M. Hall
BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e033547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jai Mistry ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Tim Noblet ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan ◽  
Alison B Rushton

IntroductionNeuropathic low back-related leg pain (LBLP) can be a challenge to healthcare providers to diagnose and treat. Accurate diagnosis of neuropathic pain is fundamental to ensure appropriate intervention is given. However, to date there is no gold standard to diagnose neuropathic LBLP. A Delphi study will therefore be conducted to obtain an expert-derived consensus list of clinical indicators to identify a neuropathic component to LBLP.Methods/analysisIncluded participants will be considered experts within the field as measured against a predefined eligibility criterion. Through an iterative multistage process, participants will rate their agreement with a list of clinical indicators and suggest any missing clinical indicators during each round. Agreement will be measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics will be used to measure agreement; median, IQR and percentage of agreement. A priori consensus criteria will be defined for each round. Data analysis at the end of round three will enable a list of clinical indicators to be derived.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was gained from the University of Birmingham (ERN_19-1142). On completion of the study, findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominick Gamache ◽  
Claudia Savard ◽  
Philippe Leclerc ◽  
Maude Payant ◽  
Nicolas Berthelot ◽  
...  

Background: The 11th version of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) has adopted a dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) nosology. Notably, it includes an assessment of PD degree of severity, which can be classified according to five categories. To date, there is no gold standard measure for assessing degree of PD severity based on the ICD-11 model, and there are no empirically-based anchor points to delineate the proposed categories. With the operationalization of PD degrees of severity in the ICD-11 PD model now being closely aligned with Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), sharing a focus on self and interpersonal dysfunction, self-report instruments developed for the latter model might prove useful as screening tools to determine degrees of severity in the former.Methods: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale, a brief validated self-report questionnaire originally designed to assess level of personality pathology according to the AMPD framework, was used to derive anchor points to delineate the five severity degrees from the ICD-11 PD model. Data from five clinical and non-clinical samples (total N = 2,240) allowed identifying anchor points for classification, based on Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis, Latent Class Analysis, and data distribution statistics. Categories were validated using multiple indices pertaining to externalizing and internalizing symptoms relevant to PD.Results: Analyses yielded the following anchor points for PD degrees of severity: No PD = 0–1.04; Personality Difficulty = 1.05–1.29; Mild PD = 1.30–1.89; Moderate PD = 1.90–2.49; and Severe PD = 2.50 and above. A clear gradient of severity across the five categories was observed in all samples. A high number of significant contrasts among PD categories were also observed on external variables, consistent with the ICD-11 PD degree of severity operationalization.Conclusions: The present study provides potentially useful guidelines to determine severity of personality pathology based on the ICD-11 model. The use of a brief self-report questionnaire as a screening tool for assessing PD degrees of severity should be seen as a time-efficient support for clinical decision and treatment planning.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jai Mistry ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Tim Noblet ◽  
Nicola R. Heneghan ◽  
Alison Rushton

Abstract Background Neuropathic pain (NP) is common in patients presenting with low back related leg pain. Accurate diagnosis of NP is fundamental to ensure appropriate intervention. In the absence of a clear gold standard, expert opinion provides a useful methodology to progress research and clinical practice. The aim of this study was to achieve expert consensus on a list of clinical indicators to identify NP in low back related leg pain. Methods A modified Delphi method consisting of three rounds was designed in accordance with the Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies recommendations. Recruitment involved contacting experts directly and through expressions of interest on social media. Experts were identified using pre-defined eligibility criteria. Priori consensus criteria were defined for each round through descriptive statistics. Following completion of round 3 a list of clinical indicators that achieved consensus were generated. Results Thirty-eight participants were recruited across 11 countries. Thirty-five participants completed round 1 (92.1%), 32 (84.2%) round 2 and 30 (78.9%) round 3. Round 1 identified consensus (Kendall’s W coefficient of concordance 0.456; p < 0.001) for 10 clinical indicators out of the original 14, and 9 additional indicators were added to round 2 following content analysis of qualitative data. Round 2 identified consensus (Kendall’s W coefficient of concordance 0.749; p < 0.001) for 10 clinical indicators out of 19, and 1 additional indicator was added to round 3. Round 3 identified consensus for 8 indicators (Kendall’s W coefficient of concordance 0.648; p < 0.001). Following completion of the third round, an expert derived consensus list of 8 items was generated. Two indicators; pain variously described a burning, electric shock like and/or shooting into leg and pain in association with other neurological symptoms (e.g. pins and needles, numbness, weakness), were found to have complete agreement amongst expert participants. Conclusions Good agreement was found for the consensus derived list of 8 clinical indicators to identify NP in low back related leg pain. This list of indicators provide some indication of the criteria upon which clinicians can identify a NP component to low back related leg pain; further research is needed for stronger recommendations to be made.


Pain Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 538-547
Author(s):  
Lisa Goudman ◽  
Eva Huysmans ◽  
Iris Coppieters ◽  
Kelly Ickmans ◽  
Jo Nijs ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective When evaluating sensory dysfunctions and pain mechanisms in patients with low back pain (LBP), a specific subgroup of patients with radicular symptoms is often excluded. Comparative studies that evaluate sensory sensitivity in patients with a dominant nociceptive and neuropathic pain component are rarely performed. Therefore, the goal of this study was to examine differences in electrical thresholds and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) between patients with low back–related leg pain (LBRLP) and patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Design Cross-sectional study. Setting University Hospital Brussels. Subjects Twenty-one patients with LBRLP and 21 patients with FBSS were included. Methods Electrical detection thresholds (EDTs), electrical pain thresholds (EPTs), and CPM were evaluated on the symptomatic and nonsymptomatic sides. Within- and between-group differences were evaluated for all parameters. Results No between-group differences were found for EDT and EPT at both sides. On the nonsymptomatic side, a significantly lower CPM effect was found in the FBSS group (P = 0.04). The only significant within-group difference was an increased EDT at the symptomatic side in patients with FBSS (P = 0.01). Conclusions LBP patients with a primary neuropathic pain component revealed altered detection sensitivity at the symptomatic side, without severe indications for altered nociceptive processing, compared with LBP patients without a dominant neuropathic pain component. Endogenous modulation is functioning in LBP patients, although it is possible that it might only be functioning partially in patients with a dominant neuropathic pain component.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document