Suppr超能文献

基于 IASP 标准的局部神经性疼痛识别工具的诊断准确性。

Diagnostic accuracy of an identification tool for localized neuropathic pain based on the IASP criteria.

机构信息

a Pain Clinic , Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat , Barcelona , Spain.

b Pain Clinic , Hospital Universitario de La Princesa , Madrid , Spain.

出版信息

Curr Med Res Opin. 2018 Aug;34(8):1465-1473. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1465905. Epub 2018 Apr 27.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Based on the clear neuroanatomical delineation of many neuropathic pain (NP) symptoms, a simple tool for performing a short structured clinical encounter based on the IASP diagnostic criteria was developed to identify NP. This study evaluated its accuracy and usefulness.

METHODS

A case-control study was performed in 19 pain clinics within Spain. A pain clinician used the experimental screening tool (the index test, IT) to assign the descriptions of non-neuropathic (nNP), non-localized neuropathic (nLNP), and localized neuropathic (LNP) to the patients' pain conditions. The reference standard was a formal clinical diagnosis provided by another pain clinician. The accuracy of the IT was compared with that of the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4) and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Signs and Symptoms (LANSS).

RESULTS

Six-hundred and sixty-six patients were analyzed. There was a good agreement between the IT and the reference standard (kappa =0.722). The IT was accurate in distinguishing between LNP and nLNP (83.2% sensitivity, 88.2% specificity), between LNP and the other pain categories (nLNP + nNP) (80.0% sensitivity, 90.7% specificity), and between NP and nNP (95.5% sensitivity, 89.1% specificity). The accuracy in distinguishing between NP and nNP was comparable with that of the DN4 and the LANSS. The IT took a median of 10 min to complete.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel instrument based on an operationalization of the IASP criteria can not only discern between LNP and nLNP, but also provide a high level of diagnostic certainty about the presence of NP after a short clinical encounter.

摘要

目的

基于许多神经病理性疼痛(NP)症状的明确神经解剖学界定,开发了一种简单的工具,用于根据 IASP 诊断标准进行简短的结构化临床接触,以识别 NP。本研究评估了其准确性和实用性。

方法

在西班牙的 19 个疼痛诊所进行了病例对照研究。一名疼痛临床医生使用实验性筛查工具(索引测试,IT)将非神经病理性(nNP)、非局部神经病理性(nLNP)和局部神经病理性(LNP)的描述分配给患者的疼痛状况。参考标准是另一名疼痛临床医生提供的正式临床诊断。比较了 IT 的准确性与 4 个问题的神经性疼痛评估(DN4)和 Leeds 神经性症状和体征评估(LANSS)。

结果

共分析了 666 名患者。IT 与参考标准之间存在良好的一致性(kappa=0.722)。IT 能够准确地区分 LNP 和 nLNP(83.2%的敏感性,88.2%的特异性),LNP 和其他疼痛类别(nLNP+nNP)(80.0%的敏感性,90.7%的特异性),以及 NP 和 nNP(95.5%的敏感性,89.1%的特异性)。区分 NP 和 nNP 的准确性与 DN4 和 LANSS 相当。IT 完成的中位数时间为 10 分钟。

结论

一种基于 IASP 标准操作化的新型仪器不仅可以区分 LNP 和 nLNP,而且可以在短时间的临床接触后提供 NP 存在的高度诊断确定性。

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

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验