ArticleMusculoskeletal science & practice2017
Distinguishing between nociceptive and neuropathic components in chronic low back pain using behavioural evaluation and sensory examination.
Article in Musculoskeletal science & practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of use of NSAIDs or steroids during the acute phase of pain on the incidence of chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Inflammopharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Mixed pain phenotypes in musculoskeletal disorders: mechanisms and management.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2026Review
- Passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of refractory nonsurgical low back pain: 24-month results from a prospective randomized controlled trial and predictors of success.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Persistent pocket-site pain after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: a prospective observational study of prevalence, neuropathic characteristics, and quality of life.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Beyond Structural Pathology: Central Sensitization and Chronic Pain with Reference to Lumbar Disc Herniation-A Narrative Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Efficacy of Back Bracing in Treating Chronic Low Back Pain.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Tactile localization accuracy at the low back.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Shedding light on neuropathic pain: Current and emerging tools for diagnosis, screening, and quantification.SAGE open medicine · 2024Review
- Critical Appraisal of Current Acute LBP Management and the Role of a Multimodal Analgesia: A Narrative Review.Pain and therapy · 2023Review
- Diagnosis and Management of Neuropathic Pain in Spine Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin Prolonged Release-Etoricoxib Combination Compared to Etoricoxib for Chronic Low Back Pain: Phase 3, Randomized Study.Pain and therapy · 2022Article
- Review
- Use of the painDETECT to discriminate musculoskeletal pain phenotypes.Archives of physiotherapy · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of patient education focusing on circadian pain rhythms: A case report and review of literature.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Astragalin Alleviates Neuropathic Pain by Suppressing P2X4-Mediated Signaling in the Dorsal Root Ganglia of Rats.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- The effect of experimental pain on short-interval intracortical inhibition with multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
- Inconclusive evidence to support the use of minimally-invasive radiofrequency denervation against chronic low back pain.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Rehabilitation management of low back pain - it's time to pull it all together!Journal of pain research · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosis of chronic low back pain (CLBP) is traditionally predicated on identifying underlying pathological or anatomical causes, with treatment outcomes modest at best. Alternately, it is suggested that identification of underlying pain mechanisms with treatments targeted towards specific pain phenotypes may yield more success. Differentiation between nociceptive and neuropathic components of CLBP is problematic; evidence suggests that clinicians fail to identify a significant neuropathic component in many CLBP patients. The painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ) was specifically developed to identify occult but significant neuropathic components in individuals thought to have predominantly nociceptive pain.
methodsUsing the PDQ, we classified 50 CLBP patients into two distinct groups; those with predominantly nociceptive pain (Group 1) and those with a significant neuropathic component (Group 2). We characterised these two distinct CLBP sub-groups using a) questionnaire-based behavioural evaluation measuring pain-related function and quality of life, pain intensity and psychological well-being and b) sensory examination, using two-point and tactile threshold discrimination.
objectiveWe sought to determine if differences in the pain phenotype of each CLBP sub-group would be reflected in sensory and behavioural group profiles.
resultsWe report that Group 1 and Group 2 sub-groups demonstrate unique clinical profiles with significant differences in sensory tactile discrimination thresholds and in a wide range of behavioural domains measuring pain intensity, disability and psychological well-being.
conclusionWe have demonstrated distinct clinical profiles for CLBP patient sub-groups classified by PDQ. Our results give diagnostic confidence in using the PDQ to characterise two distinct pain phenotypes in a heterogeneous CLBP population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.