Complex regional pain syndrome: are the IASP diagnostic criteria valid and sufficiently comprehensive?

This is a multisite study examining the internal validity and comprehensiveness of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) diagnostic criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). A standardized sign/symptom checklist was used in patient evaluations to obtain data on CRPS-related signs and symptoms in a series of 123 patients meeting IASP criteria for CRPS. Principal components factor analysis (PCA) was used to detect statistical groupings of signs/symptoms (factors). CRPS signs and symptoms grouped together statistically in a manner somewhat different than in current IASP/CRPS criteria. As in current criteria, a separate pain/sensation criterion was supported. However, unlike in current criteria, PCA indicated that vasomotor symptoms form a factor distinct from a sudomotor/edema factor. Changes in range of motion, motor dysfunction, and trophic changes, which are not included in the IASP criteria, formed a distinct fourth factor. Scores on the pain/sensation factor correlated positively with pain duration (P<0. 001), but there was a negative correlation between the sudomotor/edema factor scores and pain duration (P<0.05). The motor/trophic factor predicted positive responses to sympathetic block (P<0.05). These results suggest that the internal validity of the IASP/CRPS criteria could be improved by separating vasomotor signs/symptoms (e.g. temperature and skin color asymmetry) from those reflecting sudomotor dysfunction (e.g. sweating changes) and edema. Results also indicate motor and trophic changes may be an important and distinct component of CRPS which is not currently incorporated in the IASP criteria. An experimental revision of CRPS diagnostic criteria for research purposes is proposed. Implications for diagnostic sensitivity and specificity are discussed.

External validation of IASP diagnostic criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and proposed research diagnostic criteria. International Association for the Study of Pain.

Recent work in our research consortium has raised internal validity concerns regarding the current IASP criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), suggesting problems with inadequate sensitivity and specificity. The current study explored the external validity of these IASP criteria for CRPS. A standardized evaluation of signs and symptoms of CRPS was conducted by study physicians in 117 patients meeting IASP criteria for CRPS, and 43 patients experiencing neuropathic pain with established non-CRPS etiology (e.g. diabetic neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia). Multiple discriminant function analyses were used to test the ability of the IASP diagnostic criteria and decision rules, as well as proposed research modifications of these criteria, to discriminate between CRPS patients and those experiencing non-CRPS neuropathic pain. Current IASP criteria and decision rules (e.g. signs or symptoms of edema, or color changes or sweating changes satisfy criterion 3) discriminated significantly between groups (P < 0.001). However, although sensitivity was quite high (0.98), specificity was poor (0.36), and a positive diagnosis of CRPS was likely to be correct in as few as 40% of cases. Empirically-based research modifications to the criteria, which are more comprehensive and require presence of signs and symptoms, were also tested. These modified criteria were also able to discriminate significantly, between the CRPS and non-CRPS groups (P < 0.001). A decision rule, requiring at least two sign categories and four symptom categories to be positive optimized diagnostic efficiency, with a diagnosis of CRPS likely to be accurate in up to 84% of cases, and a diagnosis of non-CRPS neuropathic pain likely to be accurate in up to 88% of cases. These results indicate that the current IASP criteria for CRPS have inadequate specificity and are likely to lead to overdiagnosis. Proposed modifications to these criteria substantially improve their external validity and merit further evaluation.