Olmsted Medical Center, Department of Research, Rochester, MN 55904, USA.
Pain Med. 2009 Apr;10(3):586-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00588.x. Epub 2009 Mar 17.
Neuropathic pain is reported to be common based on studies from specialty centers and survey studies. However, few prevalence estimates have been completed in a community population using clinical evaluation.
To develop an estimate of the prevalence of neuropathic pain in community-dwelling adults.
Data from a mailed survey (N = 3,575 community respondents), telephone interview (N = 907), and a clinical examination (N = 205) were linked to estimate the population prevalence of neuropathic pain. Using the clinical examination as the "gold" standard, estimates from several screening tools were developed and adjusted to the Olmsted County, MN adult population.
The estimated community prevalence of neuropathic pain from the clinical examination (gold standard) was 9.8%. Most other estimates were lower, including a 3.0% population prevalence using the Berger criteria and 8.8% using the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs. Only the prevalence rate based on self-report of nerve pain was higher (12.4%). Overlap among the groups each tool identified as having "neuropathic predominant pain" was only modest and the groups had significantly different rates of depressive symptoms, anxiety, limited functional ability, and use of complementary and alternative medicine.
The estimated rates and personal characteristics of community residents with "neuropathic pain" vary widely depending on the tools used to identify neuropathic pain. None of the screening tools compared well with clinical evaluation. The differences in the groups identified by alternative screening methods become of major importance when reporting neuropathic pain epidemiology, studying therapies for neuropathic pain, or attempting to translate neuropathic pain research into clinical practice.
根据来自专业中心和调查研究的报告，神经病理性疼痛较为常见。然而，使用临床评估在社区人群中完成的患病率估计很少。
评估社区居住成年人的神经病理性疼痛患病率。
对邮寄调查（n=3575 名社区应答者）、电话访谈（n=907）和临床检查（n=205）的数据进行了链接，以估计神经病理性疼痛的人群患病率。使用临床检查作为“金标准”，开发了几种筛选工具的估计值，并对明尼苏达州奥姆斯特德县的成年人群进行了调整。
临床检查（金标准）估计的社区神经病理性疼痛患病率为 9.8%。其他大多数估计值较低，包括使用 Berger 标准的人群患病率为 3.0%，使用 Leeds 评估神经病理性症状和体征的患病率为 8.8%。只有基于神经痛自我报告的患病率较高（12.4%）。每个工具确定为具有“神经病理性为主的疼痛”的组之间的重叠仅为中等，这些组具有明显不同的抑郁症状、焦虑、有限的功能能力和使用补充和替代医学的发生率。
根据用于识别神经病理性疼痛的工具，社区居民中“神经病理性疼痛”的估计率和个人特征差异很大。没有一种筛选工具与临床评估相比表现良好。当报告神经病理性疼痛流行病学、研究神经病理性疼痛的疗法或试图将神经病理性疼痛研究转化为临床实践时，替代筛选方法确定的组之间的差异变得非常重要。
