Inter- and intra-rater-reliability of a clinical framework for spine-related neck-arm pain.

OBJECTIVE: A mechanism-based clinical framework for spine-related pain differentiates (i) somatic referred pain, ii) heightened nerve mechanosensitivity, iii) radicular pain, iv) radiculopathy and mixed-pain. This study aimed to determine the reliability of proposed framework. METHOD: Fifty-one people with unilateral spine-related neck-arm pain were assessed and categorized by examiner-1. The classifications were compared to those made by two other examiners, based on written documentation of examiner-1. Cohens kappa was calculated between examiner-pairs; Fleiss Kappa among all examiners to assess agreement in classifying subgroups and entire framework. RESULT: Inter-rater-reliability showed moderate to almost perfect reliability (somatic: no variation, mechanosensitivity: 0.96 (95% CI 0.87-1.0) to 1.0 (95% CI: 1.0-1.0), radicular pain: 0.46 (95% CI: 0.19-0.69) to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.42-0.81), radiculopathy: 0.65 (95% CI: 0.43-0.84) to 0.80 (95% CI: 0.63-0.96) mixed-pain: 0.54 (95% CI: 0.21-0.81) to 0.75 (95% CI: 0.48-0.94). There was almost perfect to moderate reliability among all examiners (somatic: no variation, mechanosensitivity: 0.97 (95% CI: 0.82-1.0), radicular pain: 0.56 (95% CI: 0.40-0.71), radiculopathy: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.58-0.90), mixed-pain: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.47-0.79), entire framework: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71)). Intra-rater-reliability showed substantial to almost perfect reliability (somatic: no variation, mechanosensitivity: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.87-1.0), radicular pain: 0.76 (95% CI: 0.57-0.92), radiculopathy: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67-0.96), mixed-pain: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.60-1.0), entire framework: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.61-0.92). CONCLUSION: Moderate to almost perfect reliability in subgrouping people with spine-related neck-arm pain and substantial reliability for entire framework support this classification's reliability.

Reliability of the English version of the painDETECT questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been used widely for the identification of neuropathic pain (NeP); however, the reliability of the English version of the PD-Q has never been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the reliability of the PD-Q pre- (T0) and immediately post- (T1) clinical consultation and at one-week follow-up (T2). METHODS: We recruited 157 patients attending a Neurosurgery Spinal Clinic and Pain Management Department. Minor changes to PD-Q instructions were made to facilitate patient understanding; however, no changes to individual items or scoring were made. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess the reliability of PD-Q total scores between T0-T1 and T0-T2; weighted kappa (κ) was used to assess the agreement of PD-Q classifications (unlikely NeP, ambiguous, likely NeP) between all time-points. To ensure stability of clinical pain, patients scoring ≤2 or ≥6 on the Patient Global Impression Scale (PGIC) at T2 were excluded from the T0-T2 analysis. RESULTS: Accounting for missing data and exclusions (change in PGIC score), data for 136 individuals (mean [SD] age: 56.8 [15.2]; 54% male) was available, of whom n = 129 were included in the T0-T1 and n = 69 in the T0-T2 comparisons. There was almost perfect agreement between the PD-Q total scores at T0-T1 time-points (ICC 0.911; 95% CI: 0.882-0.941) and substantial agreement at T0-T2 (ICC 0.792; 95% CI: 0.703-0.880). PD-Q classifications demonstrated substantial agreement for T0-T1 (weighted κ: 0.771; 95% CI: 0.683-0.858) and for T0-T2 (weighted κ: 0.691; 95% CI: 0.553-0.830). Missing data was accounted in 13% of our cohort and over 42% of our patients drew multiple pain areas on the PD-Q body chart. CONCLUSION: The English version of the PD-Q is reliable as a screening tool for NeP. The validity of the questionnaire is still in question and has to be investigated in future studies.

Self-reported sensory descriptors are associated with quantitative sensory testing parameters in patients with cervical radiculopathy, but not in patients with fibromyalgia.

BACKGROUND: The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been used as a tool to characterize sensory abnormalities in patients with persistent pain. This study investigated whether the self-reported sensory descriptors of patients with painful cervical radiculopathy (CxRAD) and patients with fibromyalgia (FM), as characterized by responses to verbal sensory descriptors from PD-Q (sensitivity to light touch, cold, heat, slight pressure, feeling of numbness in the main area of pain), were associated with the corresponding sensory parameters as demonstrated by quantitative sensory testing (QST). METHODS: Twenty-three patients with CxRAD (eight women, 46.3 ± 9.6 years) and 22 patients with FM (20 women, 46.1 ± 11.5 years) completed the PD-Q. Standardized QST of dynamic mechanical allodynia, cold and heat pain thresholds, pressure pain thresholds, mechanical and vibration detection thresholds, was recorded from the maximal pain area. Comparative QST data from 31 age-matched healthy controls (HCs; 15 women) were obtained. RESULTS: Patients with CxRAD demonstrated a match between their self-reported descriptors and QST parameters for all sensory parameters except for sensitivity to light touch, and these matches were statistically significant compared with HC data (p ≤ 0.006). The FM group demonstrated discrepancies between the PD-Q and QST sensory phenotypes for all sensory descriptors, indicating that the self-reported sensory descriptors did not consistently match the QST parameters (p = ≤0.017). CONCLUSION: Clinicians and researchers should be cautious about relying on PD-Q as a stand-alone screening tool to determine sensory abnormalities in patients with FM.