Can self-reported pain characteristics and bedside test be used for the assessment of pain mechanisms? An analysis of results of neuropathic pain questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing
Authors:
- 1 September 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Pain
- Vol. 160 (9) , 2093-2104
Abstract
Hyperalgesia and allodynia are frequent in neuropathic pain. Some pain questionnaires such as the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) and the Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) include self-assessment or bedside testing of hyperalgesia/allodynia. The aim of this study was to determine to what extent LANSS and NPS data are congruent with findings on quantitative sensory testing (QST). Self-reported presence of dynamic mechanical allodynia (DMA) and descriptors of hot, cold, or deep ongoing pain (the NPS and LANSS) as well as bedside findings of mechanical allodynia (LANSS) were compared with signs of DMA and thermal hyperalgesia on QST in 617 patients with neuropathic pain. Self-reported abnormal skin sensitivity (LANSS) showed a moderate concordance with DMA during bedside test (67.9%, κ = 0.391) or QST (52.8%, κ = 0.165). Receiver operating curve analysis for self-reported DMA yielded similar area-under-the-curve values for the LANSS (0.65, confidence interval: 0.59%-0.97%) and NPS (0.71, confidence interval: 0.66%-0.75%) with high sensitivity but low specificity. Self-reported deep pain intensity was higher in patients with blunt pressure hyperalgesia, but not in patients with DMA or thermal hyperalgesia. No correlations were observed between self-reported hot or cold pain quality and thermal hyperalgesia on QST. Self-reported abnormal skin sensitivity has a high sensitivity to identify patients with DMA, but its low specificity indicates that many patients mean something other than DMA when reporting this symptom. Self-reported deep pain is related to deep-tissue hypersensitivity, but thermal qualities of ongoing pain are not related to thermal hyperalgesia. Questionnaires mostly evaluate the ongoing pain experience, whereas QST mirrors sensory functions. Therefore, both methods are complementary for pain assessment.Keywords
This publication has 53 references indexed in Scilit:
- Self‐reported sensory descriptors are associated with quantitative sensory testing parameters in patients with cervical radiculopathy, but not in patients with fibromyalgiaEuropean journal of pain, 2012
- Bilateral Sensory Abnormalities in Patients with Unilateral Neuropathic Pain; A Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) StudyPLOS ONE, 2012
- Sensory signs in complex regional pain syndrome and peripheral nerve injuryPain, 2012
- NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessmentPain, 2011
- Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): Somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 patients with different neuropathic pain syndromesPain, 2010
- Pain and autonomic dysfunction in patients with sarcoidosis and small fibre neuropathyJournal of Neurology, 2010
- Central sensitization in carpal tunnel syndrome with extraterritorial spread of sensory symptomsPain, 2010
- Interaction of Hyperalgesia and Sensory Loss in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I (CRPS I)PLOS ONE, 2008
- Neuropathic painNeurology, 2008
- Results of the leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs pain scale in Turkey: A validation studyThe Journal of Pain, 2004