Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27764177›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Development, Validation, and Field-Testing of an Instrument for Clinical Assessment of HIV-Associated Neuropathy and Neuropathic Pain in Resource-Restricted and Large Population Study Settings.

Yohannes W Woldeamanuel, Peter R Kamerman, Demetri G A Veliotes, Tudor J Phillips, David Asboe, Marta Boffito, Andrew S C Rice

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Yohannes W WoldeamanuelPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4879-6098
Peter R KamermanBrain Function Research Group, School of Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Demetri G A VeliotesDivision of Neurology, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Tudor J PhillipsPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
David AsboeThe Pain Relief Unit, The Churchill Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Marta BoffitoHIV Medicine and Sexual Health, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew S C RicePain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Churchill Hospital · GBUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAAddis Ababa University · ETChelsea and Westminster Hospital · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

HIV-associated sensory peripheral neuropathy (HIV-SN) afflicts approximately 50% of patients on antiretroviral therapy, and is associated with significant neuropathic pain. Simple accurate diagnostic instruments are required for clinical research and daily practice in both high- and low-resource setting. A 4-item clinical tool (CHANT: Clinical HIV-associated Neuropathy Tool) assessing symptoms (pain and numbness) and signs (ankle reflexes and vibration sense) was developed by selecting and combining the most accurate measurands from a deep phenotyping study of HIV positive people (Pain In Neuropathy Study-HIV-PINS). CHANT was alpha-tested in silico against the HIV-PINS dataset and then clinically validated and field-tested in HIV-positive cohorts in London, UK and Johannesburg, South Africa. The Utah Early Neuropathy Score (UENS) was used as the reference standard in both settings. In a second step, neuropathic pain in the presence of HIV-SN was assessed using the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4)-interview and a body map. CHANT achieved high accuracy on alpha-testing with sensitivity and specificity of 82% and 90%, respectively. In 30 patients in London, CHANT diagnosed 43.3% (13/30) HIV-SN (66.7% with neuropathic pain); sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 85%, and likelihood ratio = 6.7 versus UENS, internal consistency = 0.88 (Cronbach alpha), average item-total correlation = 0.73 (Spearman's Rho), and inter-tester concordance > 0.93 (Spearman's Rho). In 50 patients in Johannesburg, CHANT diagnosed 66% (33/50) HIV-SN (78.8% neuropathic pain); sensitivity = 74.4%, specificity = 85.7%, and likelihood ratio = 5.29 versus UENS. A positive CHANT score markedly increased of pre- to post-test clinical certainty of HIV-SN from 43% to 83% in London, and from 66% to 92% in Johannesburg. In conclusion, a combination of four easily and quickly assessed clinical items can be used to accurately diagnose HIV-SN. DN4-interview used in the context of bilateral feet pain can be used to identify those with neuropathic pain.

Indexed as

AdultCohort StudiesFemaleHealth ResourcesHIV InfectionsHumansMaleNeuralgiaPain Measurement

Identifiers

PMID27764177
PMCPMC5072607
OpenAlexW2539333345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.