Patients' perspective on the chronic pain classification in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11): results from an international web-based survey.

ABSTRACT: The 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) aims at improving the lives of persons with the lived experience of chronic pain by providing clearly defined and clinically useful diagnoses that can reduce stigma, facilitate communication, and improve access to pain management, among others. The aim of this study was to assess the perspective of people with chronic pain on these diagnoses. An international web-based survey was distributed among persons with the lived experience of chronic pain. After having seen an information video, participants rated the diagnoses on 8 endorsement scales (eg, diagnostic fit, stigma) that ranged from -5 to +5 with 0 representing the neutral point of no expected change. Overall ratings and differences between participants with chronic primary pain (CPP) and chronic secondary pain (CSP) were analyzed. N = 690 participants were included in the data analysis. The ratings on all endorsement scales were significantly higher than the neutral point of 0. The highest ratings were obtained for "openness" (2.95 ± 1.93) and "overall opinion" (1.87 ± 1.98). Participants with CPP and CSP did not differ in their ratings; however, those with CSP indicated an improved diagnostic fit of the new diagnoses, whereas participants with CPP rated the diagnostic fit of the new diagnoses similar to the fit of their current diagnoses. These results show that persons with the lived experience of chronic pain accept and endorse the new diagnoses. This endorsement is an important indicator of the diagnoses' clinical utility and can contribute to implementation and advocacy.

Clinicians diagnosing virtual patients with the classification algorithm for chronic pain in the ICD-11 (CAL-CP) achieve better diagnoses and prefer the algorithm to standard tools: An experimental validation study.

BACKGROUND: The ICD-11 classification of chronic pain comprises seven categories, each further subdivided. In total, it contains over 100 diagnoses each based on 5-7 criteria. To increase diagnostic reliability, the Classification Algorithm for Chronic Pain in the ICD-11 (CAL-CP) was developed. The current study aimed to evaluate the CAL-CP regarding the correctness of assigned diagnoses, utility and ease of use. METHODS: In an international online study, n = 195 clinicians each diagnosed 4 out of 8 fictitious patients. The clinicians interacted via chat with the virtual patients to collect information and view medical histories and examination findings. The patient cases differed in complexity: simple patients had one chronic pain diagnosis; complex cases had two. In a 2 × 2 repeated-measures design with the factors tool (algorithm/standard browser) and diagnostic complexity (simple/complex), clinicians used either the algorithm or the ICD-11 browser for their diagnoses. After each case, clinicians indicated the pain diagnoses and rated the diagnostic process. The correctness of the assigned diagnoses and the ratings of the algorithm's utility and ease of use were analysed. RESULTS: The use of the algorithm resulted in more correct diagnoses. This was true for chronic primary and secondary pain diagnoses. The clinicians preferred the algorithm over the ICD-11 browser, rating it easier to work with and more useful. Especially novice users benefited from the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the algorithm increases the correctness of the diagnoses for chronic pain and is well accepted by clinicians. The CAL-CP's use should be considered in routine care and research contexts. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The ICD-11 has come into effect in January 2022. Clinicians and researchers will soon begin using the new classification of chronic pain. To facilitate clinicians training and diagnostic accuracy, a classification algorithm was developed. The paper investigates whether clinicians using the algorithm-as opposed to the generic tools provided by the WHO-reach more correct diagnoses when they diagnose standardized patients and how they rate the comparative utility of the diagnostic instruments available.

Making chronic pain count: empirical support for the ICD-11 classification of chronic pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose is to review the evidence that has been collected with regard to the new classification of chronic pain. In 2022, the World Health Assembly endorsed the 11 th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), and with it a new classification of chronic pain. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence from the formative field testing indicated that the categories were clearly delineated and the coverage of chronic pain excellent (<3% in remainder categories). Official WHO field tests showed that the classification works well within the technical parameters WHO classifications must conform to and outperformed the ICD-10 diagnoses in all respects. International field tests, in which clinicians diagnosed consecutive patients in settings of medium and high resources, showed substantial interrater reliability (κ = 0.596 to κ = 0.783) for the diagnoses and the clinicians rated their clinical utility as very high. Studies using complete hospital records demonstrated that with the information they contain, retrospective coding of the new diagnoses is possible and provides much more meaningful information than the ICD-10 diagnoses. SUMMARY: The evidence supports the use of the new classification and highlights its informational gains - using it will contribute to making chronic pain count in many contexts.

The invisible cost of pain management by the current International Classification of Diseases coding system: a study in a tertiary care inpatient setting.

ABSTRACT: The International Classification of Diseases ( ICD ) is applied worldwide for public health data collection among other use cases. However, the current version of the ICD ( ICD-10 ), to which the reimbursement system is linked in many countries, does not represent chronic pain properly. This study aims to compare the ICD-10 with the ICD-11 in hospitalized patients in terms of specificity, clinical utility, and reimbursement for pain management. The medical records of hospitalized patients consulted for pain management at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, were reviewed, and all pain-related diagnoses were coded into ICD-10 and ICD-11 . The data of 397 patients showed unspecified pain was coded 78% in the ICD-10 and only 0.5% in the ICD-11 version. The difference gap in the proportion of unspecified pain between the 2 versions is wider than in the outpatient setting. The 3 most common codes for ICD-10 were other chronic pain, low back pain, and pain in limb. The 3 most common codes for ICD-11 were chronic cancer pain, chronic peripheral neuropathic pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. As in many other countries, no pain-related ICD-10 codes were coded for routine reimbursement. The simulated reimbursement fee remained the same when adding 397 pain-related codings, even if the cost of pain management, such as cost of labor, existed. Compared with the ICD-10 version, the ICD-11 is more specific and makes pain diagnoses more visible. Thus, shifting from ICD-10 to ICD-11 has the potential to improve both the quality of care and the reimbursement for pain management.

Pain severity ratings in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases : a versatile tool for rapid assessment.

ABSTRACT: An improved classification of chronic pain is included in the 11 th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems . For all diagnoses of chronic pain, an optional dimensional code for the chronic pain severity will supplement the categorical diagnoses. Pain severity combines pain intensity, pain-related interference, and pain-related distress. Each component is rated by the patient on a numerical rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10 and subsequently translated into severity stages ("mild," "moderate," and "severe"). This study aimed to evaluate this severity code by comparing the ratings with established psychometric measures of pain-related interference and distress. An online survey was posted to self-help groups for chronic pain, and 595 participants (88.7% women, 59.5 ± 13.5 years) rated each of the severity parameters (pain intensity, pain-related interference, and pain-related distress) on an NRS from 0 to 10 and completed the Pain Disability Index and the Pain Coping Questionnaire (FESV, 3 subscales). The participants reported a mean pain intensity of 6.4 ± 1.9, mean pain-related interference of 6.7 ± 2.1, and mean pain-related distress of 5.7 ± 2.5. The respective NRS ratings showed substantial correlations with the Pain Disability Index score ( r = 0.65) and the FESV subscales ( r = 0.65, r = 0.56, r = 0.37). The extension code for pain severity is a valid and efficient way of recording additional dimensional pain parameters, which can be used to monitor the course of chronic pain and its treatment. The specifier's efficiency makes it possible to use the code when a questionnaire would not be feasible due to time constraints, such as in primary care.

Reliability and clinical utility of the chronic pain classification in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases from a global perspective: results from India, Cuba, and New Zealand.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 persons and contributes substantially to the global burden of disease. The 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes a comprehensive classification of chronic pain. The aim of this ecological implementation field study was to evaluate the classification's interrater reliability and clinical utility in countries with different income levels. The study was conducted in 4 pain clinics in Cuba, India, and New Zealand. Twenty-one clinicians used the ICD-11 to diagnose and code n = 353 patients with chronic pain. Of these, 111 were assessed by 2 clinicians, and Fleiss' kappa was calculated to establish interrater reliability for any diagnosis assigned to ≥15 patients. The clinicians rated the clinical utility of all diagnoses. The interrater reliability could be calculated for 11 diagnoses. It was substantial for 10 diagnoses and moderate for 1 (kappa: 0.596-0.783). The mean clinical utility of the ICD-11 chronic pain diagnoses was rated as 8.45 ± 1.69/10. Clinical utility was rated higher for ICD-11 than for the commonly used classification systems (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.25) and differed between all centers (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.60). The utility of the ICD-11 diagnoses was rated higher than the commonly used diagnoses in Dunedin and Havana, and no difference was found in Kolkata and Hyderabad. The study showed the high interrater reliability of the new chronic pain diagnoses. The perceived clinical utility of the diagnoses indicates their superiority or equality compared with the classification systems currently used in pain clinics. These results suggest the global applicability of the classification in specialized pain treatment settings.

Classification of chronic pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11): results of the 2017 international World Health Organization field testing.

ABSTRACT: Because chronic pain has been poorly represented in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) despite its significant contribution to the burden of disease worldwide, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) developed a classification of chronic pain that was included in the ICD-11 version as "MG30" and approved by the World Health Assembly in 2019. The objective of this field test was to determine how well the classification of chronic pain works in the context of the ICD-11. A web-based survey using the WHO-FiT platform recruited 177 healthcare professionals from all WHO regions. After a training on coding chronic pain hosted by the IASP Web site, participants evaluated 18 diagnostic codes (lines) of the 2017 frozen version of the ICD-11 and 12 vignettes (cases) describing chronic pain conditions. Correctness, ambiguity, and perceived difficulty of the coding were compared between the ICD-11 and the ICD-10 and the applicability of the morbidity rules for the ICD-11 verified. In the line coding, 43.0% of correct chronic pain diagnoses assigned with the ICD-10 contrasted with 63.2% with the ICD-11. Especially in cases in which the chronic pain is regarded as the symptom of an underlying disease, the ICD-11 (63.5%) commanded more correct diagnoses than the ICD-10 (26.8%). The case coding was on average 83.9% accurate, only in 1.6% of cases any difficulty was perceived. The morbidity rules were applied correctly in 74.1% of cases. From a coding perspective, the ICD-11 is superior to the ICD-10 in every respect, offering better accuracy, difficulty, and ambiguity in coding chronic pain conditions.

Chronic pain in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases : users' questions answered.

ABSTRACT: For the first time, the upcoming International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) will include a comprehensive classification of chronic pain, which is based on the biopsychosocial definition of chronic pain. This presents a great opportunity for pain research and clinical practice. The new classification consists of 7 main diagnostic categories of chronic pain, which are further divided into increasingly specific levels of diagnoses. Each diagnosis is characterized by clearly defined operationalized criteria. Future users will need to familiarize themselves with the new system and its application. The aim of the present publication is to provide users of the ICD-11 chronic pain classification with answers to frequently asked questions regarding the ICD-11 as a whole, the ICD-11 chronic pain classification, and its application to common pain syndromes. The questions compiled in this study reached the International Association for the Study of Pain Task Force through different routes (eg, at conferences, by letter, or during field testing). Furthermore, the authors collected questions posted to the ICD-11 browser and contacted early users of the classification to enquire about their most frequent difficulties when applying the new diagnoses. The authors of the present publication prepared answers to these frequently asked questions. This publication intends to act as a guide for the future users of the new ICD-11 chronic pain classification, hence facilitating its implementation.

Chronic Pain in the ICD-11: New Diagnoses That Clinical Psychologists Should Know About.

Background: In the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), chronic pain was not represented adequately. Pain was left undefined and not recognized as a biopsychosocial phenomenon. Instead, a flawed dualism between psychological and somatic factors was implied. Individual diagnoses were ill-defined and scattered randomly through different chapters. Many patients received diagnoses in remainder categories devoid of meaningful clinical information. Method: The International Association for the Study of Pain launched a Task Force to improve the diagnoses for the 11th revision of the ICD and this international expert team worked from 2013-2019 in cooperation with the WHO to develop a consensus based on available evidence and to improve the diagnoses. Results: A new chapter on chronic pain was created with a biopsychosocial definition of pain. Chronic pain was operationalized as pain that persists or recurs longer than three months and subdivided into seven categories: Chronic primary pain and six types of chronic secondary pain. All diagnoses were based on explicit operationalized criteria. Optional extension codes allow coding pain-related parameters and the presence of psychosocial aspects together with each pain diagnosis. Conclusion: First empirical studies demonstrated the integrity of the categories, the reliability, clinical utility, international applicability and superiority over the ICD-10. To improve reliability and ease of diagnosis, a classification algorithm is available. Clinical psychologists and other clinicians working with people with chronic pain should watch the national implementation strategies and advocate for multimodal and interdisciplinary treatments and adequate reimbursement for all providers involved.

Not really nice: a commentary on the recent version of NICE guidelines [NG193: chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16s: assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary pain] by the Pain Net.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence should revise their recent guideline to take into account all the available evidence on the treatment of chronic primary pain.

Comparing the ICD-11 chronic pain classification with ICD-10: how can the new coding system make chronic pain visible? A study in a tertiary care pain clinic setting.

ABSTRACT: Pain is a frequent reason for patients to ask for medical services. However, systematic information about the extent and impact of pain, especially in developing countries, has not been available up to now. We evaluated whether the 11th edition of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) can fill this gap by coding all electronic out-patient medical records of the pain clinic at Siriraj Hospital in Thailand in 2019 (8714 visits), using the ICD-10 and ICD-11 browsers referenced on the WHO websites. The 3 most frequent pain-related codes in ICD-10 were R52.2 "other chronic pain" (29%), M54.5 "low back pain" (18%), and M79.6 "pain in limb" (13%). In ICD-11, the 3 most frequent codes were MG30.31 "chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain associated with structural changes" (28%), MG30.51 "chronic peripheral neuropathic pain" (26%), and MG30.10 "chronic cancer pain" (23%). Thus, using the currently valid ICD-10 system, roughly one-third of patient encounters were coded as "other chronic pain," and the next 2 were specifying the pain region rather than any underlying cause. By contrast, ICD-11 coding of the same patients identified underlying causes (bones and joints, somatosensory nervous system, cancer, or surgery), which provide guidance towards differential patient management. In our pain clinic, most patients suffered from chronic cancer pain, chronic neuropathic pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain, which were poorly defined or nonexistent in the current ICD-10 coding system. Compared with the ICD-10, the ICD-11 provides more detailed diagnostic categories and is more informative for clinical use, research, and resource allocation for pain-related conditions.

Classification algorithm for the International Classification of Diseases-11 chronic pain classification: development and results from a preliminary pilot evaluation.

ABSTRACT: The International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11) chronic pain classification includes about 100 chronic pain diagnoses on different diagnostic levels. Each of these diagnoses requires specific operationalized diagnostic criteria to be present. The classification comprises more than 200 diagnostic criteria. The aim of the Classification Algorithm for Chronic Pain in ICD-11 (CAL-CP) is to facilitate the use of the classification by guiding users through these diagnostic criteria. The diagnostic criteria were ordered hierarchically and visualized in accordance with the standards defined by the Society for Medical Decision Making Committee on Standardization of Clinical Algorithms. The resulting linear decision tree underwent several rounds of iterative checks and feedback by its developers, as well as other pain experts. A preliminary pilot evaluation was conducted in the context of an ecological implementation field study of the classification itself. The resulting algorithm consists of a linear decision tree, an introduction form, and an appendix. The initial decision trunk can be used as a standalone algorithm in primary care. Each diagnostic criterion is represented in a decision box. The user needs to decide for each criterion whether it is present or not, and then follow the respective yes or no arrows to arrive at the corresponding ICD-11 diagnosis. The results of the pilot evaluation showed good clinical utility of the algorithm. The CAL-CP can contribute to reliable diagnoses by structuring a way through the classification and by increasing adherence to the criteria. Future studies need to evaluate its utility further and analyze its impact on the accuracy of the assigned diagnoses.

Evaluation of the International Classification of Diseases-11 chronic pain classification: study protocol for an ecological implementation field study in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the present ecological implementation field study is to evaluate the new classification of chronic pain as implemented in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) with regard to clinical utility and interrater reliability. To evaluate the classification in a variety of settings, the study will be implemented in different low-, middle-, and high-income countries. METHODS: The study will be conducted in 2 phases. Participating pain clinics of the first phase are located in India, Cuba, and New Zealand. Two or more clinicians per study center will use the ICD-11 classification of chronic pain to diagnose 75 to 100 consecutive new chronic pain patients per center. A structured classification algorithm will guide the diagnostic process. Interrater reliability will be analyzed for the first 20 consecutive new patients per center. Before the coding, a training workshop will introduce the clinicians to the new classification. The main outcome parameter of the ecological implementation field study is clinical utility. More specifically, this entails clinical utility ratings, interrater reliability, as well as the exhaustiveness of the classification and the mutual exclusiveness of the new chronic pain categories. Differences between countries with different cultural backgrounds and income levels will be analyzed. PERSPECTIVE: The ecological implementation field study presented here will be implemented in several countries with different income levels. This increases the generalizability of the results and allows initial insight into the global applicability of the new chronic pain classification. A positive evaluation can facilitate the implementation of the classification.

Emotional distress: Specifying a neglected part of chronic pain.

We argue that in all randomized controlled trials that investigate treatments for chronic pain emotional distress should be reported. In a majority of cases, pain intensity and pain-related disability are measured, yet-despite guidelines to the contrary-pain-related distress is not included. We suggest that the new extension code for chronic pain as incorporated in the ICD-11 will be well suited to fill this gap at minute additional effort for the participants.