Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28637600›Full record

ArticleMusculoskeletal science & practice2017

Distinguishing between nociceptive and neuropathic components in chronic low back pain using behavioural evaluation and sensory examination.

N Spahr, D Hodkinson, K Jolly, S Williams, M Howard, M Thacker

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Tactile localization accuracy at the low back.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

N SpahrDept. of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; Dept. of Physiotherapy, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: nicolas.1.spahr@kcl.ac.uk.
D HodkinsonDept. of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
K JollyDept. of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
S WilliamsDept. of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
M HowardDept. of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
M ThackerDept. of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; Dept. of Physiotherapy, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre of Human & Aerospace Physiological Sciences, King's College London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CAT CDRF 10-054Medical Research Council MR/N026063/1Medical Research Council MR/N026969/1
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAnalgesicsChronic PainFemaleHumansLondonLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedNeuralgiaNociceptive PainPain MeasurementQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAnalgesicsChronic painLow back painNeuropathic painNociceptive pain

Identifiers

PMID28637600
PMCPMC5329124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.