[The EAN-NeuPSIG guideline on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain-a summary]. / Die EAN-NeuPSIG-Leitlinie zur Diagnostik bei neuropathischen Schmerzen ­ eine Kurzfassung.

In this joint guideline of the scientific societies and working groups mentioned in the title, evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain were developed. The systematic literature search and meta-analysis yielded the following results: Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I­DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, while S­LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT received weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic workup of patients with possible neuropathic pain. There was a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials. The role of confocal corneal microscopy is still unclear. Functional imaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in elucidating the pathophysiology, but current literature does not support their use in diagnosing neuropathic pain. In selected cases, genetic testing in specialized centers may be considered.

Somatosensory dysfunction in patients with posttraumatic headache: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Aim of the review is to summarize the knowledge about the sensory function and pain modulatory systems in posttraumatic headache and discuss its possible role in patients with posttraumatic headache. BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic headache is the most common complication after traumatic brain injury, and significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Even though it has a high prevalence, its origin and pathophysiology are poorly understood. Thereby, the existing treatment options are insufficient. Identifying its mechanisms can be an important step forward to develop target-based personalized treatment. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for studies examining pain modulation and/or quantitative sensory testing in individuals with headache after brain injury. RESULTS: The studies showed heterogenous alterations in sensory profiles (especially in heat and pressure pain perception) compared to healthy controls and headache-free traumatic brain injury-patients. Furthermore, pain inhibition capacity was found to be diminished in subjects with posttraumatic headache. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the small number of heterogenous studies a distinct sensory pattern for patients with posttraumatic headache could not be identified. Further research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms and biomarkers for prediction of development and persistence of posttraumatic headache.

Evoked potentials after painful cutaneous electrical stimulation depict pain relief during a conditioned pain modulation.

BACKGROUND: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the pain modulating effect of a noxious conditioning stimulus (CS) on another noxious test stimulus (TS), mostly based solely on subjective pain ratings. We used painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) to induce TS in a novel CPM-model. Additionally, to evaluate a more objective parameter, we recorded the corresponding changes of cortical evoked potentials (PCES-EP). METHODS: We examined the CPM-effect in 17 healthy subjects in a randomized controlled cross-over design during immersion of the non-dominant hand into 10 °C or 24 °C cold water (CS). Using three custom-built concentric surface electrodes, electrical stimuli were applied on the dominant hand, inducing pain of 40-60 on NRS 0-100 (TS). At baseline, during and after CS we assessed the electrically induced pain intensity and electrically evoked potentials recorded over the central electrode (Cz). RESULTS: Only in the 10 °C-condition, both pain (52.6 ± 4.4 (baseline) vs. 30.3 ± 12.5 (during CS)) and amplitudes of PCES-EP (42.1 ± 13.4 µV (baseline) vs. 28.7 ± 10.5 µV (during CS)) attenuated during CS and recovered there after (all p < 0.001). In the 10 °C-condition changes of subjective pain ratings during electrical stimulation and amplitudes of PCES-EP correlated significantly with each other (r = 0.5) and with CS pain intensity (r = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: PCES-EPs are a quantitative measure of pain relief, as changes in the electrophysiological response are paralleled by a consistent decrease in subjective pain ratings. This novel CPM paradigm is a feasible method, which could help to evaluate the function of the endogenous pain modulation processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012779 , retrospectively registered on 24 July 2017.

Painful Cutaneous Electrical Stimulation vs. Heat Pain as Test Stimuli in Conditioned Pain Modulation.

Different paradigms can assess the effect of conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The aim of the present study was to compare heat pain, as an often used test stimulus (TS), to painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES), having the advantage of the additional recording of PCES-related evoked potentials. In 28 healthy subjects we applied heat and PCES at the dominant hand as test stimulus (TS) to compare the CPM-effect elicited by hand immersion into cold water (10 °C) as conditioning stimulus (CS). Subjects rated the pain intensity of TS at baseline, during and 5 min after CS application and additionally of CS, on a numerical rating scale (NRS) (0-100). The 'early' (during CS-before CS) and 'late' (after CS-before CS) CPM-effects were analyzed. Parallel to the PCES, the related evoked potentials were recorded via Cz to evaluate any changes in PCES-amplitudes. CS reduced significantly the pain intensity of both PCES and heat pain as TS. On a group level, the CPM-effect did not differ significantly between both paradigms. Both early and late CPM-effect based on PCES correlated significantly with the CS pain intensity (r = -0.630 and -0.503, respectively), whereas using heat pain the correlation was not significant. We found a significant reduction of PCES-amplitudes during CS, but this did not correlate with the PCES-induced pain intensity. Correlation with the CS painfulness (r = -0.464) did not achieve the significance level after Bonferroni correction. The extent of the CPM effects was similar in both testing paradigms at group level, despite intraindividual differences. Future studies should further elicit the exact mechanisms explaining the modality of these specific differences.