Treatment Expectations in Chronic Pain Scale

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Gabrielle Pagé ◽  
Daniel Ziemianski ◽  
Marc Olivier Marte ◽  
Yoram Shir
Author(s):  
M. Gabrielle Pagé ◽  
Daniel Ziemianski ◽  
Marc Olivier Martel ◽  
Yoram Shir

Author(s):  
Angelika Rauch ◽  
Sebastian Hahnel ◽  
Anita Kloss-Brandstätter ◽  
Oliver Schierz

Abstract Objectives The objective was to describe the physical and psychosocial features of patients attending a specialized consultation hour for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). This investigation focused on those patients who did not receive a diagnosis according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). Materials and methods From 2004 to 2017, patients seeking care during a TMD-specialized consultation hour were consecutively recruited. Each patient completed a TMD-related questionnaire, psychosocial questionnaires (Graded Chronic Pain Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Beschwerden-Liste), and the Oral Health Impact Profile-49. The clinical examination was performed according to the RDC/TMD. Results The mean age of the 1020 patients was 43.3 years (75.3% female). According to the RDC/TMD decision trees, 351 patients were categorized without a TMD diagnosis (NoTMDdx). The most frequent reasons for seeking care were orofacial pain/TMJ pain or headaches revealing an OR of 1.89 (for TMDdx group). A relevant proportion of patients was categorized as positive for anxiety (NoTMDdx/TMDdx 30.8/41.2%; p = 0.072), depression (20.8/23.9%; p = 0.433), non-specific physical symptoms (31.4/44.1%; p < 0.001), or dysfunctional chronic pain (11.5/18.2%; p < 0.001). In both patient groups, the oral health-related quality of life was impaired (42.9/52.7 points; p < 0.001), and the frequency of therapy measures prior to the consultation hour was high. Conclusions Patients seeking care from TMD specialists were usually referred with TMD-associated symptoms. Of those, a relevant proportion did not receive a diagnosis according to RDC/TMD decision trees. Clinical relevance Psychosocial screening and the avoidance of overtreatment are recommended for patients with TMD-related symptoms.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 20190338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna-Karin Abrahamsson ◽  
Linda Z Arvidsson ◽  
Milada Cvancarova Småstuen ◽  
Tore A Larheim

Objectives: To investigate the longitudinal changes of the imaging temporomandibular joint (TMJ) characteristics in young patients with TMJ-related symptoms and treated with non-surgical methods. The severity of self-reported symptoms at follow-up was also investigated. Methods: A cone beam CT (CBCT)/CT follow-up examination [median follow-up 4.1 (1.3–6.4) years] was performed in 22 patients with erosive TMJ abnormalities [baseline median age 16 (12–18) years]. Imaging characteristics were analyzed and the changes between the examinations were categorized as (A) improvement, (B) no change, or (C) worsening. Severity of follow-up symptoms was evaluated using Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS-8) and Graded Chronic Pain Scale (Grade 0–IV). Analyses were performed separately for left and right TMJ. Findings at baseline and follow-up were compared using McNemar test to account for dependencies. Changes in proportions of hard tissue findings between examinations were assessed using Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Results: A significant reduction in the proportion of patients with erosive abnormalities was found [59.1%, 95% CI (36.4–79.3) %]. Baseline erosions improved in 9/12 (75%) right and 14/15 (93%) left TMJs. About half repaired; developed an intact cortical outline. Number of joints with osteophytes increased (right: p < 0.04, left: p < 0.003). New osteophytes were mostly found in joints with erosive findings. Low or no limitation of jaw function (Jaw Functional Limitation Scale) was found in 12/22 (55%) and no or low intensity of pain (Graded Chronic Pain Scale Grade 0 or I) in 19/22 (86%) at follow-up. Conclusion: We found a high potential for repair of erosive TMJ abnormalities. However, the patient series was small. The majority of patients assessed their symptom severity at follow-up as low.


2019 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Chan-Juan Xie ◽  
Xiang-Hua Xu ◽  
Mei-Jun Ou ◽  
Yong-Yi Chen

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-6
Author(s):  
Ira Tanti ◽  
Vivi Vidya Waty Wira ◽  
Yenni Pragustine ◽  
Laura Susanti Himawan ◽  
Nina Ariani

BACKGROUND Pain associated with oral problems is one of the most frequent chronic pain of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). This study was conducted to analyze the psychometric properties of the Indonesian version of the graded chronic pain scale 2.0 (GCPS-ID) in Indonesian patients with TMDs. METHODS The English version of the GCPS version 2.0 was translated and back-translated according to international guidelines. This study conducted from June to December 2016 at the Dental Hospital, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, and the participants were 202 TMDs patients who had never undergone temporomandibular joint surgery or suffered facial pain for more than 6 months. The evaluation of the GCPS-ID included the internal consistency test, test-retest reliability, and construct validity tests. RESULTS The GCPS-ID had a high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.896). The intraclass correlation coefficient of the pain intensity and the disability score were 0.789 and 0.706, respectively. The convergent validity demonstrated a moderately positive correlation between the GCPS-ID and the Indonesian version of oral health impact profile for TMD for pain (r = 0.595; p<0.001) and disability (r = 0.488; p<0.001). The discriminant validity between GCPS-ID and the subjective patient’s quality of life revealed a weak positive correlation (r = 0.195; p = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS GCPS-ID is a reliable and valid assessment tool for evaluating TMD pain in Indonesia.


Pain ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 651-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Von Korff ◽  
Lynn L. DeBar ◽  
Erin E. Krebs ◽  
Robert D. Kerns ◽  
Richard A. Deyo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3525-3525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keesha Roach ◽  
Robert E Molokie ◽  
Zaijie Jim Wang ◽  
Mariam O Ezenwa ◽  
David Shuey ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Pain in sickle cell disease (SCD) has been thought to be episodic, but more recent evidence has shown that individuals in this population also suffer from chronic pain likely resulting from central or peripheral neural damage (neuropathic pain). There is accumulating evidence from human and animal studies indicating potential neuropathic pain in SCD. A number of valid and reliable measures of neuropathic pain have been used to differentiate neuropathic from non-neuropathic types of pain. PAINReportIt, which takes about 10 to 18 minutes to complete, is a computer based self-report pain assessment tool based on the 1970 version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. From PAINReportIt, a new subscale has been proposed as a measure of neuropathic pain that sums the number of neuropathic pain quality words selected. The PAINReportIt number of neuropathic pain (PR-NNP) scale, however, lacks validation in patients with SCD. Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine the construct validity for the PR-NNP by examining the associations between the PR-NNP and other valid and reliable measures of neuropathic pain (self-administered Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs [S-LANSS] and the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory [NPSI]) among adults with SCD. We hypothesized that the PR-NNP scores would be significantly correlated with S-LANSS and NPSI scores. Methods: This prospective instrument validation study was conducted in an ambulatory research setting with 79 adults diagnosed with SCD who had chronic pain within the prior 12 months (>3 on a 0-10 pain scale). The sample mean age was 36.0 ± 11.5 [ranged from 19-74 years], 63% were female, and 97% reported they were African American. The participants were asked to complete self-reported pain measures (PR-NNP, S-LANSS, NPSI, and PR-NNoc [number of nociceptive pain words]). Descriptive, correlational, and regression analyses were used. Results: Mean scores for average pain intensity, PR-NNP, NSPI, S-LANSS, and PR-NNoc appear in Table 1. Bivariate results indicated moderate correlation between the two validated measures of neuropathic pain (NPSI and S-LANSS; r= .57, p=.000). The NPSI was moderately correlated with PR-NNP (r= .43, p=.000), and weakly correlated with PR-NNoc (r=.35, p=.002). For S-LANSS, there was a moderate correlation with PR-NNP (r=0.41, p=.000) and a weak correlation with PR-NNoc (r=.30, p=.007). There was a weak correlation between average pain intensity and NPSI and S-LANSS, r=.37, p=.001 and r=.36, p=.001, respectively. Regression analysis including average pain intensity, PR-NNP, and PR-NNoc as predictors showed that controlling for PR-NNP and average pain, PR-NNoc was not significantly associated with either NPSI (p=.930) or S-LANSS (p=.731), while each point of increase in PR-NNP was associated with an increase of 1.9 (p=.004) in NPSI and of 0.8 (p=.003) in S-LANSS. The same analysis showed that a one point increase in the average pain intensity was associated with an increase of 2.7 (p=.001) in NPSI and of 1.0 (p=.001) in S-LANSS. Conclusions: Both average pain intensity and PR-NNP but not PR-NNoc have unique explanatory properties of both indicators of neuropathic pain (NPSI and S-LANSS). These findings support the construct validity of the PR-NNP as a potential screening tool for neuropathic pain in patients with SCD. Validation of PR-NNP is important for future neuropathic pain research in the sickle cell population, particularly in cases of multi-site trials, and in cases where the practitioner can detect the potential presence of neuropathic pain without use of expensive equipment. These findings are important because pain management in the sickle cell population often includes opioids, but easy and early detection of neuropathic pain could result in an opioid sparing pain management approach in this population. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


1987 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-93
Author(s):  
Diane Jacks Kiluk ◽  
Albert D. Farrell ◽  
Kenneth I. Kiluk

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document