国际疼痛研究协会制定的复杂性区域疼痛综合征的国际疼痛研究协会(IASP)诊断标准及拟议的研究诊断标准的外部验证。

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

作者信息

Bruehl S, Harden R N, Galer B S, Saltz S, Bertram M, Backonja M, Gayles R, Rudin N, Bhugra M K, Stanton-Hicks M

机构信息

Center for Pain Studies, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, IL 60611, USA.

出版信息

Pain. 1999 May;81(1-2):147-54. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00011-1.

Abstract

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.

摘要

我们研究联盟最近的工作引发了对国际疼痛研究协会(IASP)当前复杂性区域疼痛综合征(CRPS)标准内部有效性的担忧,表明其存在敏感性和特异性不足的问题。本研究探讨了这些IASP的CRPS标准的外部有效性。研究医生对117名符合IASP的CRPS标准的患者以及43名患有已确诊非CRPS病因的神经性疼痛患者(如糖尿病性神经病变、带状疱疹后神经痛)进行了CRPS体征和症状的标准化评估。采用多元判别函数分析来测试IASP诊断标准和决策规则以及这些标准的拟议研究修改版区分CRPS患者和患有非CRPS神经性疼痛患者的能力。当前的IASP标准和决策规则(如水肿的体征或症状,或颜色变化或出汗变化满足标准3)在两组之间有显著差异(P < 0.001)。然而,尽管敏感性相当高(0.98),但特异性较差(0.36),CRPS的阳性诊断在仅40%的病例中可能是正确的。还测试了基于经验对标准进行的更全面且要求有体征和症状的研究修改版。这些修改后的标准在CRPS组和非CRPS组之间也能够显著区分(P < 0.001)。一项决策规则要求至少两个体征类别和四个症状类别为阳性,优化了诊断效率,CRPS诊断在高达84%的病例中可能准确,非CRPS神经性疼痛诊断在高达88%的病例中可能准确。这些结果表明,当前IASP的CRPS标准特异性不足,可能导致过度诊断。对这些标准的拟议修改极大地提高了其外部有效性,值得进一步评估。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索