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.
Subject(s)
Low Back Pain/diagnosis , Neurologic Examination , Pain Measurement/methods , Severity of Illness Index , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Chronic Disease , Decision Trees , Diabetic Neuropathies/diagnosis , Diabetic Neuropathies/physiopathology , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/physiopathology , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Nerve Compression Syndromes/diagnosis , Nerve Compression Syndromes/physiopathology , Neuralgia, Postherpetic/diagnosis , Neuralgia, Postherpetic/physiopathology , Physical Stimulation , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spinal Nerve Roots , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: A prospective pilot study was conducted, attempting to identify objective tests that would help clinicians to assess the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial preceding permanent device implantation. SETTING: Four university hospitals in the United States and Israel. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen patients with radicular leg pain due to failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or leg pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) who were candidates for SCS. METHODS: PARTICIPANTS underwent a series of quantitative sensory tests prior to, and seven days after the initiation of SCS trial. These tests included: vibration threshold (conducted using the VSA 3000; Medoc Inc., Ramat Ishay, Israel), cold threshold, warm threshold, heat pain threshold, phasic heat pain threshold, tonic heat pain threshold (conducted using the TSA 2001; Medoc Inc.), and electrical pain tolerance at 5, 250 and 2000 Hz (administered using the NerveScan 2000; Neurotron, Inc., Baltimore, MD, USA). RESULTS: Useful data were obtained from 12 patients. The results of the vibration threshold and the tolerance to electrical stimulation at 5 and 250 Hz changed with an SCS trial. These results also correlated with the decision regarding the permanent implantation, which was made independently of them. In contrast, the results of thermal thresholds and tolerance to electrical stimulation at 2000 Hz tests did not change with the SCS trial. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings, which agree with those of a few other studies, suggest that the vibration threshold and the tolerance to electrical stimulation at 5 and 250 Hz tests can assist the clinician to select the right patients for permanent stimulation.
