Psychometric and accuracy comparison of three commonly used questionnaires for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnosis of neuropathic pain is challenging. Recently, scientists developed multiple questionnaires to expedite this diagnosis including the Self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS), Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire (DN4), and Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (NPQ-SF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study to compare the psychometric characteristics and accuracy of the three questionnaires. We assessed reliability with the Cronbach's α reliability coefficient and inter-item correlations, and validity with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and correlation analyses. We assessed agreement between the diagnosis of the questionnaires and the reference clinical diagnosis using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: 188 patients were analyzed: 141 (75%) had "definite neuropathic" and 47 (25%) had "nonneuropathic" pain. The NPQ-SF and S-LANSS questionnaires demonstrated acceptable reliability with Cronbach's α coefficient values of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.41-0.64) and 0.65, (95%CI: 0.57-0.72), respectively. The DN4 questionnaire demonstrated high reliability with Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.74 (95%CI: 0.68-0.79). The NPQ-SF, DN4, and S-LANSS questionnaires demonstrated "excellent" diagnostic ability with an area under the ROC curve of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75-0.89), 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.95), and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75-0.90), respectively. Based on their optimal cutoff values, the DN4 had the highest sensitivity and lowest specificity in discriminating between neuropathic and nonneuropathic patients, while the S-LANSS had the lowest sensitivity and highest specificity. CONCLUSION: Both NPQ-SF and S-LANSS demonstrated acceptable reliability, while DN4 demonstrated high reliability. All three demonstrated excellent diagnostic validities; however, it is important to consider the sensitivity and specificity of each.

Comparative performance of two protective barriers during tracheal intubation of COVID-19 patients: A simulation cross-over study.

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the WHO in 2020. In light of the global shortage of PPE and concerns regarding the safety of healthcare providers, clinicians have resorted to the use of novel protective barriers, such as aerosol boxes and plastic sheets, during aerosol generating procedures, especially tracheal intubation. We compared the effect of these barriers on the tracheal intubation of simulated patients with severe COVID-19 in a crossover study. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of King Faisal Specialist Hospital, and the procedures were compliant with the COVID-19 airway management guidelines of the Saudi Anesthesia Society. The time to intubation was our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included number of optimization maneuvers, number of intubation attempts, time to glottic view and ventilation of the lungs, and damage to PPE. Thirteen consultant anesthetists performed 39 tracheal intubations on a manikin using each of three approaches (aerosol box, plastic sheet, and no-barrier). Data were collected via direct and video observation. The plastic sheet approach demonstrated the highest time to intubation (mean ± StE [95% CI]: 33.3s ± 3.5 [25.8- 40.9]) compared to the aerosol box (22.0s ± 2.5 [16.5 - 27.5], P < 0.01) and no-barrier approaches (16.1s ± 1.1 [13.7 - 18.4], P < 0.0001). Similarly, the plastic sheet approach had the highest time to glottic view, and ventilation intervals compared to the other two approaches, while the no-barrier approach had the shortest time intervals. There were no failed intubations or damage to the PPE sustained during the use of any of the three approaches. The aerosol box does not impose a significant delay in tracheal intubation using video laryngoscopy, unlike the plastic sheet barrier. Further research on the aerosolization risk is warranted before these protective barriers can be considered as mainstay approaches during aerosol generating procedures.

Prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of chronic pain (CP) and high-impact chronic pain (HICP) in a sample of the general adult population in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional online survey (N=24,265). Forty data collectors from 5 regions of Saudi Arabia approached people to complete the questionnaires through different social media applications, using a validated survey in Arabic language. RESULTS: Chronic pain and HICP prevalences in the Saudi adult population were found to be 46.4% (CP) and 4% (HICP), with a higher prevalence among women and elderly. Chronic back pain was the most reported pain location. Half of the respondents reported dissatisfaction with pain services. Greater prevalence of HICP was found among women, elderly, unemployed, and those with low-income status. Patients with HICP were more likely to have more healthcare utilization and have more negative impacts on their physical and psychological wellbeing. CONCLUSION: Chronic pain and HICP are common in Saudi Arabia, especially among females and elderly, suggesting a public health problem. This calls for collaborative efforts at various levels of the social hierarchy to ensure the provision of effective management of CP in Saudi Arabia.

Prevalence of depression and its association with sociodemographic factors in patients with chronic pain: A cross-sectional study in a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health issues, especially depression, are common in chronic pain patients. Depression affects these patients negatively and could lead to poor control of their pain. Some risk factors for both chronic pain and depression are known and need to be targeted as part of the management in a multidisciplinary approach. This study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of depression among chronic pain patients attending a pain clinic and to explore the association between depression in chronic pain patients and other factors such as sociodemographic features, number of pain sites, severity of pain, and types of pain. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study that carried out in a chronic pain clinic in a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre). All chronic pain patients including cancer-related pain, apart from acute pain patients and children, were eligible to participate in the study. Association between depression and sociodemographic factors was assessed with univariate and multivariate methods. Main outcome measures were the prevalence of depression in chronic pain patients using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the association with sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: A total of 200 chronic pain patients (128 females [64%]) participated in the study. The prevalence of depression was 71% (95% confidence interval: 64.7-77.3) based on the PHQ-9 diagnostic criteria using a cutoff point of >5. Among those patients who were depressed, 9 (4.5%) had severe depression as compared to 31 (15.5%), 41 (20.5%), and 61 (30.5%) who had moderately severe, moderate, and mild depression, respectively. Depression (scored at the cutoff point of 5) in chronic pain patients was significantly associated with age, financial status, medical history of depression, and pain severity. CONCLUSION: Depression is common among chronic pain patients with several risk factors aggravating its presentation. Due to their increased risk of depression, psychiatric counseling that offers mental health assistance should be prioritized and made available as a multidisciplinary approach for the treatment of chronic pain patients.

An observational study of perioperative antibiotic-prophylaxis use at a major quaternary care and referral hospital in Saudi Arabia.

CONTEXT: The use of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis has been consistently considered an effective means of reducing the risk of surgical site infections. However, inappropriate use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with complications such as reduced treatment efficacy, development of antibiotic resistance, and increased health-care costs. AIMS: The aim of this study is to investigate the adherence to international/national guidelines regarding the use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in the perioperative period. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (KFSH&RC) a 1589-bed tertiary/quaternary care and referral hospital based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study, in which antibiotic prophylaxis parameters were assessed against recommendations provided by international/national guidelines in elective/emergency procedures performed at the general operating suite. Data was obtained from the medical records starting of 174 cases over a period of 2 weeks in May 2016. RESULTS: Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) was prescribed for 118 (78.7%) patients, 72 (61%) of which were "recommended," whereas 46 (39%) were "not recommended." Of the 72 patients for whom the antibiotics were "recommended" and given, 19 (26.4%) received "inadequate" choice of antibiotics, 50 (69.4%) received a sub-therapeutic dose, 14 (19.4%) had "improper" timing of the first dose, 11 (15.3%) were given an "inappropriate" second intraoperative dose, and 43 (59.7%) had an unnecessarily extended duration of prophylaxis. The overall compliance to guidelines was achieved in only 23 (15.3%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: A significant gap between current KFSH & RC practice and international/national guidelines regarding surgical antibiotic prophylaxis usage has been demonstrated which calls for immediate action to ensure effective guideline adoption and implementation.