Scholz Joachim, Mannion Richard J, Hord Daniela E, Griffin Robert S, Rawal Bhupendra, Zheng Hui, Scoffings Daniel, Phillips Amanda, Guo Jianli, Laing Rodney J C, Abdi Salahadin, Decosterd Isabelle, Woolf Clifford J
Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
PLoS Med. 2009 Apr 7;6(4):e1000047. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000047.
Adequate pain assessment is critical for evaluating the efficacy of analgesic treatment in clinical practice and during the development of new therapies. Yet the currently used scores of global pain intensity fail to reflect the diversity of pain manifestations and the complexity of underlying biological mechanisms. We have developed a tool for a standardized assessment of pain-related symptoms and signs that differentiates pain phenotypes independent of etiology.
Using a structured interview (16 questions) and a standardized bedside examination (23 tests), we prospectively assessed symptoms and signs in 130 patients with peripheral neuropathic pain caused by diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or radicular low back pain (LBP), and in 57 patients with non-neuropathic (axial) LBP. A hierarchical cluster analysis revealed distinct association patterns of symptoms and signs (pain subtypes) that characterized six subgroups of patients with neuropathic pain and two subgroups of patients with non-neuropathic pain. Using a classification tree analysis, we identified the most discriminatory assessment items for the identification of pain subtypes. We combined these six interview questions and ten physical tests in a pain assessment tool that we named Standardized Evaluation of Pain (StEP). We validated StEP for the distinction between radicular and axial LBP in an independent group of 137 patients. StEP identified patients with radicular pain with high sensitivity (92%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 83%-97%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI 89%-100%). The diagnostic accuracy of StEP exceeded that of a dedicated screening tool for neuropathic pain and spinal magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, we were able to reproduce subtypes of radicular and axial LBP, underscoring the utility of StEP for discerning distinct constellations of symptoms and signs.
We present a novel method of identifying pain subtypes that we believe reflect underlying pain mechanisms. We demonstrate that this new approach to pain assessment helps separate radicular from axial back pain. Beyond diagnostic utility, a standardized differentiation of pain subtypes that is independent of disease etiology may offer a unique opportunity to improve targeted analgesic treatment.
在临床实践和新疗法研发过程中,充分的疼痛评估对于评价镇痛治疗的疗效至关重要。然而,目前使用的整体疼痛强度评分未能反映疼痛表现的多样性和潜在生物学机制的复杂性。我们开发了一种用于标准化评估疼痛相关症状和体征的工具,该工具能够独立于病因区分疼痛表型。
我们采用结构化访谈(16个问题)和标准化床旁检查(23项测试),前瞻性地评估了130例由糖尿病性多发性神经病、带状疱疹后神经痛或神经根性腰痛(LBP)引起的外周神经病理性疼痛患者以及57例非神经病理性(轴性)LBP患者的症状和体征。分层聚类分析揭示了症状和体征的不同关联模式(疼痛亚型),这些模式表征了6个神经病理性疼痛患者亚组和2个非神经病理性疼痛患者亚组。通过分类树分析,我们确定了用于识别疼痛亚型的最具鉴别力的评估项目。我们将这6个访谈问题和10项体格检查组合在一个疼痛评估工具中,我们将其命名为疼痛标准化评估(StEP)。我们在另一组137例独立患者中验证了StEP用于区分神经根性和轴性LBP的效果。StEP识别神经根性疼痛患者的敏感性较高(92%;95%置信区间[CI] 83% - 97%),特异性也较高(97%;95% CI 89% - 100%)。StEP的诊断准确性超过了一种专门用于神经病理性疼痛的筛查工具和脊髓磁共振成像。此外,我们能够重现神经根性和轴性LBP的亚型,这突出了StEP在辨别不同症状和体征组合方面的实用性。
我们提出了一种识别疼痛亚型的新方法,我们认为该方法反映了潜在的疼痛机制。我们证明这种新的疼痛评估方法有助于区分神经根性背痛和轴性背痛。除了诊断用途外,独立于疾病病因的疼痛亚型标准化区分可能为改善靶向镇痛治疗提供独特机会。