Effectiveness of neural mobilisation for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain: a systematic review with subgroup meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Neural mobilisations (NM) have been advocated for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain; however, it is unclear what types of patients with nerve-related cervicobrachial pain (if any) may benefit. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, PeDro, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until December 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they assessed the effectiveness of NM in nerve-related cervicobrachial pain, and outcome measures were pain intensity and/or disability. Studies were classified according to their inclusion/exclusion criteria as radiculopathy , Wainner cluster , Hall , and Elvey cluster or other . Meta-analyses with subgroup analyses were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Rob2 tool. Twenty-seven studies were included. For pain and disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than no treatment (pooled pain mean difference [MD] = -2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.81 to -1.81; pooled disability standardized mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI = -2.72 to -0.37), increased the effectiveness of standard physiotherapy as an adjuvant when compared with standard physiotherapy alone (pooled pain MD = -1.44, 95% CI = -1.98 to -0.89; pooled disability MD = -11.07, 95% CI = -16.38 to -5.75) but was no more effective than cervical traction (pooled pain MD = -0.33, 95% CI = -1.35 to 0.68; pooled disability MD = -10.09, 95% CI = -21.89 to 1.81). For disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than exercise (pooled MD = -18.27, 95% CI = -20.29 to -17.44). In most comparisons, there were significant differences in the effectiveness of NM between the subgroups. Neural mobilisations was consistently more effective than all alternative interventions (no treatment, traction, exercise, and standard physiotherapy alone) in 13 studies classified as Wainner cluster . PROSPERO registration: CRD42022376087.

Short- and long-term test-retest reliability of the English version of the 7-item DN4 questionnaire - a screening tool for neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES: The original French version of the "Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire" is a valid screening tool for the identification of neuropathic pain (NeP). The DN4 has been translated into English, but the reliability of the English version has not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the 7-item DN4 questionnaire in regards to short-term reliability before (T0) and immediately after (T1) the clinical examination and long-term reliability one week later (T2). METHODS: A total of 222 participants (age 56.33 ± 16 years, 56 % female) were recruited from a Pain Management Department and Neurosurgery Spinal Clinic. For T2 measurements, the 7-item DN4 was sent by post with the "Patient Global Impression of Change Scale". The scale detects possible changes of symptoms, scoring from "very much improved" (1) to "very much worse" (7). Only participants whose symptoms had not changed much (scores 3-5) were included in the T0-T2 analysis. Weighted Kappa was used to analyse the reliability of the DN4 total scores and unweighted Kappa for the DN4 classifications. RESULTS: Considering missing data and exclusions, data of 215 participants could be used for the T0-T1 and data of 103 participants for T0-T2 analysis. There was almost perfect agreement for the 7-item DN4 total score between T0-T1 (weighted k: 0.891, CI: 0.758-1.024) and T0-T2 (weighted k: 0.850, CI: 0.657-1.043). Classifications between neuropathic pain and no neuropathic pain showed almost perfect agreement (k: 0.835, CI: 0.755-0.915) for T0-T1 and substantial agreement (k: 0.733, CI: 0.598-0.868) for T0-T2. CONCLUSIONS: The English 7-item DN4 is a reliable screening tool for neuropathic pain. ETHICAL COMMITTEE NUMBER: #RGS0000001759.

Recommendations for terminology and the identification of neuropathic pain in people with spine-related leg pain. Outcomes from the NeuPSIG working group.

ABSTRACT: Pain radiating from the spine into the leg is commonly referred to as "sciatica," "Sciatica" may include various conditions such as radicular pain or painful radiculopathy. It may be associated with significant consequences for the person living with the condition, imposing a reduced quality of life and substantial direct and indirect costs. The main challenges associated with a diagnosis of "sciatica" include those related to the inconsistent use of terminology for the diagnostic labels and the identification of neuropathic pain. These challenges hinder collective clinical and scientific understanding regarding these conditions. In this position paper, we describe the outcome of a working group commissioned by the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) which was tasked with the following objectives: (1) to revise the use of terminology for classifying spine-related leg pain and (2) to propose a way forward on the identification of neuropathic pain in the context of spine-related leg pain. The panel recommended discouraging the term "sciatica" for use in clinical practice and research without further specification of what it entails. The term "spine-related leg pain" is proposed as an umbrella term to include the case definitions of somatic referred pain and radicular pain with and without radiculopathy. The panel proposed an adaptation of the neuropathic pain grading system in the context of spine-related leg pain to facilitate the identification of neuropathic pain and initiation of specific management in this patient population.

Factors predicting the transition from acute to persistent pain in people with 'sciatica': the FORECAST longitudinal prognostic factor cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sciatica is a common condition and is associated with higher levels of pain, disability, poorer quality of life, and increased use of health resources compared with low back pain alone. Although many patients recover, a third develop persistent sciatica symptoms. It remains unclear, why some patients develop persistent sciatica as none of the traditionally considered clinical parameters (eg, symptom severity, routine MRI) are consistent prognostic factors.The FORECAST study (factors predicting the transition from acute to persistent pain in people with 'sciatica') will take a different approach by exploring mechanism-based subgroups in patients with sciatica and investigate whether a mechanism-based approach can identify factors that predict pain persistence in patients with sciatica. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a prospective longitudinal cohort study including 180 people with acute/subacute sciatica. N=168 healthy participants will provide normative data. A detailed set of variables will be assessed within 3 months after sciatica onset. This will include self-reported sensory and psychosocial profiles, quantitative sensory testing, blood inflammatory markers and advanced neuroimaging. We will determine outcome with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index and a Numerical Pain Rating Scale for leg pain severity at 3 and 12 months.We will use principal component analysis followed by clustering methods to identify subgroups. Univariate associations and machine learning methods optimised for high dimensional small data sets will be used to identify the most powerful predictors and model selection/accuracy.The results will provide crucial information about the pathophysiological drivers of sciatica symptoms and may identify prognostic factors of pain persistence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The FORECAST study has received ethical approval (South Central Oxford C, 18/SC/0263). The dissemination strategy will be guided by our patient and public engagement activities and will include peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, social media and podcasts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18170726; Pre-results.

Classification criteria for cervical radiculopathy: An international e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Establishing a set of uniform classification criteria (CC) for cervical radiculopathy (CR) is required to aid future recruitment of homogenous populations to clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To establish expert informed consensus on CC for CR. DESIGN: A pre-defined four round e-Delphi study in accordance with the guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies. METHODS: Individuals with a background in physiotherapy who had authored two or more peer-reviewed publications on CR were invited to participate. The initial round asked opinions on CC for CR. Content analysis was performed on round one output and a list of discrete items were generated forming the round two survey. In rounds two to four, participants were asked to rate the level of importance of each item on a six-point Likert scale. Data were analysed descriptively using median, interquartile range and percentage agreement. Items reaching pre-defined consensus criteria were carried forward to the next round. Items remaining after the fourth round constituted expert consensus on CC for CR. RESULTS: Twelve participants participated with one drop out. The final round identified one inclusion CC and 12 exclusion CC. The inclusion CC that remained achieved 82% agreement and was a cluster criterion consisting of radicular pain with arm pain worse than neck pain; paraesthesia or numbness and/or weakness and/or altered reflex; MRI confirmed nerve root compression compatible with clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: The CC identified can be used to inform eligibility criteria for future CR trials although caution should be practiced as consensus on measurement tools requires further investigation.

Disentangling 'sciatica' to understand and characterise somatosensory profiles and potential pain mechanisms.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to investigate if patients with lumbar radicular pain only and those with combined lumbar radicular pain + radiculopathy differ in their somatosensory profiles and pain experiences. METHODS: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in 26 patients (mean age 47 ± 10 years, 10 females) with unilateral leg pain in the L5 or S1 distribution in their main pain area (MPA) and contralateral mirror side, in the relevant foot dermatome on the symptomatic side and in the hand dorsum. Pain experience was captured on the painDETECT. RESULTS: Eight patients presented with lumbar radicular pain only and 18 patients with combined radicular pain + radiculopathy. Patients with radicular pain only demonstrated widespread loss of function (mechanical detection) bilaterally in the MPA (p<0.003) and hand (p=0.002), increased heat sensitivity in both legs (p<0.019) and cold/heat sensitivity in the hand (p<0.024). QST measurements in the dermatome did not differ compared to HCs and patients with radiculopathy. Patients with lumbar radiculopathy were characterised by a localised loss of function in the symptomatic leg in the MPA (warm, mechanical, vibration detection, mechanical pain threshold, mechanical pain sensitivity p<0.031) and dermatome (mechanical, vibration detection p<0.001), consistent with a nerve root lesion. Pain descriptors did not differ between the two groups with the exception of numbness (p<0.001). Patients with radicular pain did not report symptoms of numbness, while 78% of patients with radiculopathy did. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct differences in somatosensory profiles and pain experiences were demonstrated for each patient group, suggesting differing underlying pain mechanisms.

[Entrapment neuropathies: a contemporary approach to pathophysiology, clinical assessment, and management : German version]. / Nervenkompressionssyndrome ­ eine aktuelle Betrachtung von Pathophysiologie, klinischer Untersuchung und Management : Deutsche Fassung.

Entrapment neuropathies such as carpal tunnel syndrome, radiculopathies, or radicular pain are the most common peripheral neuropathies and also the most common cause for neuropathic pain. Despite their high prevalence, they often remain challenging to diagnose and manage in a clinical setting. Summarising the evidence from both preclinical and clinical studies, this review provides an update on the aetiology and pathophysiology of entrapment neuropathies. Potenzial mechanisms are put in perspective with clinical findings. The contemporary assessment is discussed and diagnostic pitfalls highlighted. The evidence for the noninvasive and surgical management of common entrapment neuropathies is summarised and future areas of research are identified.

Application and utility of a clinical framework for spinally referred neck-arm pain: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The clinical presentation of neck-arm pain is heterogeneous with varying underlying pain types (nociceptive/neuropathic/mixed) and pain mechanisms (peripheral/central sensitization). A mechanism-based clinical framework for spinally referred pain has been proposed, which classifies into (1) somatic pain, (2) neural mechanosensitivity, (3) radicular pain, (4) radiculopathy and mixed pain presentations. This study aims to (i) investigate the application of the clinical framework in patients with neck-arm pain, (ii) determine their somatosensory, clinical and psychosocial profile and (iii) observe their clinical course over time. METHOD: We describe a study protocol. Patients with unilateral neck-arm pain (n = 180) will undergo a clinical examination, after which they will be classified into subgroups according to the proposed clinical framework. Standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) measurements will be taken in their main pain area and contralateral side. Participants will have to complete questionnaires to assess function (Neck Disability Index), psychosocial factors (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Depression, anxiety and stress scale), neuropathic pain (Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions, PainDETECT Questionnaire) and central sensitization features (Central Sensitization Inventory). Follow-ups at three, six and 12 months include the baseline questionnaires. The differences of QST data and questionnaire outcomes between and within groups will be analyzed using (M)AN(C)OVA and/or regression models. Repeated measurement analysis of variance or a linear mixed model will be used to calculate the differences between three, six, and 12 months outcomes. Multiple regression models will be used to analyze potential predictors for the clinical course. CONCLUSION: The rationale for this study is to assess the usability and utility of the proposed clinical framework as well as to identify possible differing somatosensory and psychosocial phenotypes between the subgroups. This could increase our knowledge of the underlying pain mechanisms. The longitudinal analysis may help to assess possible predictors for pain persistency.

Somatosensory profiles in patients with non-specific neck-arm pain with and without positive neurodynamic tests.

Despite normal neurological integrity tests, some patients with non-specific neck-arm pain (NSNAP) have heightened nerve mechanosensitivity upon neurodynamic testing. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not a nerve dysfunction is present in patients with positive neurodynamic tests compared to those with negative neurodynamic tests or healthy controls. Somatosensory profiling using quantitative sensory testing (QST) was established in 40 consecutive patients with unilateral NSNAP; 23 had positive upper limb neurodynamic tests (ULNTPOS) and 17 had negative neurodynamic tests (ULNTNEG) and in 26 healthy controls. QST included measurement of thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds in the maximal pain area on the symptomatic side as well as the corresponding contralateral area. Fifty-seven percent of patients with NSNAP had positive neurodynamic tests. Somatosensory profiling revealed a loss of function phenotype in NSNAP patients compared to healthy controls both in the maximal pain area and asymptomatic side. Hyperalgesia (cold, heat and pressure) was present bilaterally in both NSNAP groups. Direct comparison between the patient groups revealed no significant differences in somatosensory profiles. However, the ULNTPOS group demonstrated sensory loss compared to healthy controls in more parameters than the ULNTNEG group. The ULNTNEG subgroup represented an intermediate phenotype between ULNTPOS patients and healthy controls in most detection thresholds as well as thermal and pressure pain thresholds. Even though patients with NSNAP present as a spectrum, it remains unclear whether the sensory changes are indicative of a nerve dysfunction/lesion or rather a marker of altered central pain processing.

Entrapment neuropathies: a contemporary approach to pathophysiology, clinical assessment, and management.

Entrapment neuropathies such as carpal tunnel syndrome, radiculopathies, or radicular pain are the most common peripheral neuropathies and also the most common cause for neuropathic pain. Despite their high prevalence, they often remain challenging to diagnose and manage in a clinical setting. Summarising the evidence from both preclinical and clinical studies, this review provides an update on the aetiology and pathophysiology of entrapment neuropathies. Potential mechanisms are put in perspective with clinical findings. The contemporary assessment is discussed and diagnostic pitfalls highlighted. The evidence for the noninvasive and surgical management of common entrapment neuropathies is summarised and future areas of research are identified.

Association of quantitative sensory testing parameters with clinical outcome in patients with lumbar radiculopathy undergoing microdiscectomy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to establish the somatosensory profile of patients with lumbar radiculopathy at pre-and post-microdiscectomy and to explore any association between pre-surgical quantitative sensory test (QST) parameters and post-surgical clinical outcomes. METHODS: A standardized QST protocol was performed in 53 patients (mean age 38 ± 11 years, 26 females) with unilateral L5/S1 radiculopathy in the main pain area (MPA), affected dermatome and contralateral mirror sites and in age- and gender-,and body site-matched healthy controls. Repeat measures at 3 months included QST, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and numerous other clinical measures; at 12 months, only clinical measures were repeated. A change <30% on the ODI was defined as 'no clinically meaningful improvement'. RESULTS: Patients showed a significant loss of function in their symptomatic leg both in the dermatome (thermal, mechanical, vibration detection p < .002), and MPA (thermal, mechanical, vibration detection, mechanical pain threshold, mechanical pain sensitivity p < .041) and increased cold sensitivity in the MPA (p < .001). Pre-surgical altered QST parameters improved significantly post-surgery in the dermatome (p < .018) in the symptomatic leg and in the MPA (p < .010), except for thermal detection thresholds and cold sensitivity. Clinical outcomes improved at 3 and 12 months (p < .001). Seven patients demonstrated <30% change on the ODI at 12 months. Baseline loss of function in mechanical detection in the MPA was associated with <30% change on the ODI at 12 months (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.09-6.37, p = .032). CONCLUSION: Microdiscectomy resulted in improvements in affected somatosensory parameters and clinical outcomes. Pre-surgical mechanical detection thresholds may be predictive of clinical outcome. SIGNIFICANCE: This study documented quantitative sensory testing (QST) profiles in patients with lumbar radiculopathy in their main pain area (MPA) and dermatome pre- and post-microdiscectomy and explored associations between QST parameters and clinical outcome. Lumbar radiculopathy was associated with loss of function in modalities mediated by large and small sensory fibres. Microdiscectomy resulted in significant improvements in loss of function and clinical outcomes in 85% of our cohort. Pre-surgical mechanical detection thresholds in the MPA may be predictive of clinical outcome.

Integrated prevention and management of non-communicable diseases, including musculoskeletal health: a systematic policy analysis among OECD countries.

INTRODUCTION: Development and implementation of appropriate health policy is essential to address the rising global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The aim of this study was to evaluate existing health policies for integrated prevention/management of NCDs among Member States of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). We sought to describe policies' aims and strategies to achieve those aims, and evaluate extent of integration of musculoskeletal conditions as a leading cause of global morbidity. METHODS: Policies submitted by OECD Member States in response to a World Health Organization (WHO) NCD Capacity Survey were extracted from the WHO document clearing-house and analysed following a standard protocol. Policies were eligible for inclusion when they described an integrated approach to prevention/management of NCDs. Internal validity was evaluated using a standard instrument (sum score: 0-14; higher scores indicate better quality). Quantitative data were expressed as frequencies, while text data were content-analysed and meta-synthesised using standardised methods. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates and screening, 44 policies from 30 OECD Member States were included. Three key themes emerged to describe the general aims of included policies: system strengthening approaches; improved service delivery; and better population health. Whereas the policies of most countries covered cancer (83.3%), cardiovascular disease (76.6%), diabetes/endocrine disorders (76.6%), respiratory conditions (63.3%) and mental health conditions (63.3%), only half the countries included musculoskeletal health and pain (50.0%) as explicit foci. General strategies were outlined in 42 (95.5%) policies-all were relevant to musculoskeletal health in 12 policies, some relevant in 27 policies and none relevant in three policies. Three key themes described the strategies: general principles for people-centred NCD prevention/management; enhanced service delivery; and system strengthening approaches. Internal validity sum scores ranged from 0 to 13; mean: 7.6 (95% CI 6.5 to 8.7). CONCLUSION: Relative to other NCDs, musculoskeletal health did not feature as prominently, although many general prevention/management strategies were relevant to musculoskeletal health improvement.

Concurrent validity of a low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory test battery to evaluate somatosensory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: This study describes a low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory test (CST) battery and evaluates its concurrent validity as a screening tool to detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined using quantitative sensory testing (QST). METHOD: Three patient cohorts with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS, n = 76), non-specific neck and arm pain (NSNAP, n = 40) and lumbar radicular pain/radiculopathy (LR, n = 26) were included. The CST consisted of 13 tests, each corresponding to a QST parameter and evaluating a broad spectrum of sensory functions using thermal (coins, ice cube, hot test tube) and mechanical (cotton wool, von Frey hairs, tuning fork, toothpicks, thumb and eraser pressure) detection and pain thresholds testing both loss and gain of function. Agreement rate, statistical significance and strength of correlation (phi coefficient) between CST and QST parameters were calculated. RESULTS: Several CST parameters (cold, warm and mechanical detection thresholds as well as cold and pressure pain thresholds) were significantly correlated with QST, with a majority demonstrating >60% agreement rates and moderate to relatively strong correlations. However, agreement varied among cohorts. Gain of function parameters showed stronger agreement in the CTS and LR cohorts, whereas loss of function parameters had better agreement in the NSNAP cohort. Other CST parameters (16 mN von Frey tests, vibration detection, heat and mechanical pain thresholds, wind-up ratio) did not significantly correlate with QST. CONCLUSION: Some of the tests in the CST could help detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined with QST. Parts of the CST could therefore be used as a low-cost screening tool in a clinical setting. SIGNIFICANCE: Quantitative sensory testing, albeit considered the gold standard to evaluate somatosensory dysfunction, requires expensive equipment, specialized examiner training and substantial time commitment which challenges its use in a clinical setting. Our study describes a CST as a low-cost and time-efficient alternative. Some of the CST tools (cold, warm, mechanical detection thresholds; pressure pain thresholds) significantly correlated with the respective QST parameters, suggesting that they may be useful in a clinical setting to detect sensory dysfunction.

Field testing of the revised neuropathic pain grading system in a cohort of patients with neck and upper limb pain.

Background and aims In 2008, the International Association for the Study of Pain Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) proposed a clinical grading system to help identify patients with neuropathic pain (NeP). We previously applied this classification system, along with two NeP screening tools, the painDETECT (PD-Q) and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale (LANSS), to identify NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain. Both screening tools failed to identify a large proportion of patients with clinically classified NeP, however a limitation of our study was the use of a single clinician performing the NeP classification. In 2016, the NeuPSIG grading system was updated with the aim of improving its clinical utility. We were interested in field testing of the revised grading system, in particular in the application of the grading system and the agreement of interpretation of clinical findings. The primary aim of the current study was to explore the application of the NeuPSIG revised grading system based on patient records and to establish the inter-rater agreement of detecting NeP. A secondary aim was to investigate the level of agreement in detecting NeP between the revised NeuPSIG grading system and the LANSS and PD-Q. Methods In this retrospective study, two expert clinicians (Specialist Pain Medicine Physician and Advanced Scope Physiotherapist) independently reviewed 152 patient case notes and classified them according to the revised grading system. The consensus of the expert clinicians' clinical classification was used as "gold standard" to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the two NeP screening tools. Results The two clinicians agreed in classifying 117 out of 152 patients (ICC 0.794, 95% CI 0.716-850; κ 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.73), yielding a 77% agreement. Compared to the clinicians' consensus, both LANSS and PD-Q demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy in detecting NeP (LANSS sensitivity 24%, specificity 97%; PD-Q sensitivity 53%, specificity 67%). Conclusions The application of the revised NeP grading system was feasible in our retrospective analysis of patients with neck/upper limb pain. High inter-rater percentage agreement was demonstrated. The hierarchical order of classification may lead to false negative classification. We propose that in the absence of sensory changes or diagnostic tests in patients with neck/upper limb pain, classification of NeP may be further improved using a cluster of clinical findings that confirm a relevant nerve lesion/disease, such as reflex and motor changes. The diagnostic accuracy of LANSS and PD-Q in identifying NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain remains limited. Clinical judgment remains crucial to diagnosing NeP in the clinical practice. Implications Our observations suggest that in view of the heterogeneity in patients with neck/upper limb pain, a considerable amount of expertise is required to interpret the revised grading system. While the application was feasible in our clinical setting, it is unclear if this will be feasible to apply in primary health care settings where early recognition and timely intervention is often most needed. The use of LANSS and PD-Q in the identification of NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain remains questionable.

Psychological factors can cause false pain classification on painDETECT.

Background and aims The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been widely used as a screening tool for the identification of neuropathic pain (NeP) as well as a tool for the characterization of patients' pain profile. In contrast to other NeP screening tools, the PD-Q is the only screening tool with weighted sensory descriptors. It is possible that responses to the PD-Q sensory descriptors are influenced by psychological factors, such as catastrophizing or anxiety, which potentially might contribute to an overall higher score of PD-Q and a false positive identification of NeP. This study aimed to explore (i) the relationship between psychological factors (catastrophizing, anxiety, depression and stress) and the total PD-Q score and (ii) if psychological factors are associated with false positive identifications of NeP on the PD-Q compared to clinically diagnosed NeP. Methods The study was a retrospective review of 1,101 patients attending an outpatient pain centre. Patients were asked to complete the PD-Q, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). For patients who were identified by PD-Q as having NeP, their medical records were reviewed to establish if they had a clinical diagnosis of NeP. Results Accounting for missing data, complete datasets of 652 patients (mean age 51 (SD14) years, range 18-88; 57% females) were available for analysis. Based on PD-Q scoring, NeP was likely present in 285 (44%) patients. Depression, anxiety, stress, catastrophizing, BPI pain and BPI interference were all significantly related to each other (p < 0.0001) and patients displaying these traits were significantly more likely to have a positive PD-Q score (p < 0.0001). For patients classified by PD-Q as having NeP, only 50% of patients had a clinical diagnosis of NeP. Anxiety was significantly associated with a false positive classification of NeP on PD-Q (p = 0.0036). Conclusions Our retrospective study showed that psychological factors including catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, and stress were all influential in producing a higher score on the PD-Q. We observed a high rate of false positive NeP classification which was associated with the presence of anxiety. Implications Clinicians and researchers should be aware that a patient's psychological state may influence the responses to PD-Q and consequently the final PD-Q score and its NeP classification.

Sensory profiles are comparable in patients with distal and proximal entrapment neuropathies, while the pain experience differs.

OBJECTIVE: Distal and proximal entrapment neuropathies such as carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and cervical radiculopathy (CR) share similar etiologies. Experimental models suggest that, despite comparable etiology, pathomechanisms associated with injuries of the peripheral and central axon branches are distinct. This study therefore compared self-reported and elicited sensory profiles in patients with distal and proximal entrapment neuropathies. METHODS: Patients with electrodiagnostically confirmed CTS (n = 103) and patients with CR (n = 23) were included in this study. A group of healthy participants served as controls (n = 39). Symptoms and sensory profiles were evaluated using quantitative sensory testing (QST) and a self-reported neuropathic pain questionnaire (painDETECT). RESULTS: Both patient groups were characterized by a loss of function in thermal and mechanical detection in the main pain area and dermatome compared to healthy reference data (p < .001). There was no significant difference between patients with CTS and CR in pain and detection thresholds except for reduced vibration sense in the main pain area (p < .001) and reduced pressure pain sensitivity in the dermatome in patients with CR (p < .001). However, patients with CR reported higher pain intensities (p = .008), more severe pain attacks (p = .009) and evoked pain by light pressure (p = .002) compared to patients with CTS. CONCLUSION: While QST profiles were similar between patients with CTS and CR, self-reported pain profiles differed and may suggest distinct underlying mechanisms in these patient cohorts.

Entrapment Neuropathies: Challenging Common Beliefs With Novel Evidence.

Entrapment neuropathies are the most prevalent type of peripheral neuropathy and often a challenge to diagnose and treat. To a large extent, our current knowledge is based on empirical concepts and early (often biomechanical) studies. This Viewpoint will challenge some of the current beliefs with recent advances in both basic and clinical neurosciences. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(2):58-62. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.0603.

The prevalence of back pain in patients in one Australian tertiary hospital population.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present study were to provide back pain (BP) point prevalence data from inpatients at an Australian tertiary hospital on one day, and compare this with Australian non-hospitalized population prevalence data; to collect data around the development of BP throughout hospital admission; and to analyse the association between BP and past history of BP, gender, age, admission specialty and hospital length of stay (LOS). METHODS: This was a single-site, prospective, observational study of hospitalized inpatients on one day during 2016, with a subsequent survey over the following 11 days (unless discharge or death occurred sooner). RESULTS: Data were collected from 343 patients (75% of the hospitalized cohort). A third of patients (n = 108) reported BP on admission, and almost a fifth (n = 63) developed new BP during their hospitalization. Patients who described BP at any time during their hospital stay had a higher chance of having had a history of BP, with odds increasing after adjustment for age and gender (odds ratio 5.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 11.6; p < 0.001). After adjusting for age and gender, those experiencing BP had a significantly longer LOS (median 13 days; CI 10.8 to 15.3) than those who did not (median 10 days; CI 8.4 to 11.6; p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital LOS for patients who complained of BP at any time during their admission was 3 days longer than those who had no BP, and a history of BP predicted a higher likelihood of BP during admission. Screening of patients on admission to identify any history of BP, and application of a package of care including early mobilization and analgesia may prevent the onset of BP and reduce LOS.

Characterisation of pain in people with hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsy.

Hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsy (HNPP) has historically been considered a pain-free condition, though some people with HNPP also complain of pain. This study characterised persistent pain in people with HNPP. Participants provided cross-sectional demographic data, information on the presence of neurological and persistent pain symptoms, and the degree to which these interfered with daily life. The painDETECT and Central Sensitization Inventory questionnaires were used to indicate potential neuropathic, central sensitisation and musculoskeletal (nociceptive) pain mechanisms. Additionally, participants were asked if they thought that pain was related to/part of HNPP. 32/43 (74%) subjects with HNPP had persistent pain and experience this pain in the last week. Of those with pain, 24 (75%) were likely to have neuropathic pain and 27 (84%) were likely to have central sensitisation. All 32 participants felt that their pain could be related to/part of their HNPP. Significant negative impact of the pain was common. Pain characterisation identified neuropathic pain and/or central sensitisation as common, potential underlying processes. Pain may plausibly be directly related to the underlying pathophysiology of HNPP. Further consideration of including pain as a primary symptom of HNPP is warranted.

Identification of neuropathic pain in patients with neck/upper limb pain: application of a grading system and screening tools.

The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain has proposed a grading system for the presence of neuropathic pain (NeP) using the following categories: no NeP, possible, probable, or definite NeP. To further evaluate this system, we investigated patients with neck/upper limb pain with a suspected nerve lesion, to explore: (i) the clinical application of this grading system; (ii) the suitability of 2 NeP questionnaires (Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale [LANSS] and the painDETECT questionnaire [PD-Q]) in identifying NeP in this patient cohort; and (iii) the level of agreement in identifying NeP between the NeuPSIG classification system and 2 NeP questionnaires. Patients (n = 152; age 52 ± 12 years; 53% male) completed the PD-Q and LANSS questionnaire and underwent a comprehensive clinical examination. The NeuPSIG grading system proved feasible for application in this patient cohort, although it required considerable time and expertise. Both questionnaires failed to identify a large number of patients with clinically classified definite NeP (LANSS sensitivity 22%, specificity 88%; PD-Q sensitivity 64%, specificity 62%). These lowered sensitivity scores contrast with those from the original PD-Q and LANSS validation studies and may reflect differences in the clinical characteristics of the study populations. The diagnostic accuracy of LANSS and PD-Q for the identification of NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain appears limited.