ArticlePain reports2024
Application and accuracy of the EAPC/IASP diagnostic algorithm for neuropathic cancer pain and quantitative sensory testing profile in patients with pain due to cancer.
Article in Pain reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neuropathic Pain in Cancer: What Are the Current Guidelines?Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Better diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) remains an unmet clinical need. The EAPC/IASP algorithm was specifically designed for NcP diagnosis; yet, to date, there is no information on its application and accuracy. Objectives: Our aim was to determine the accuracy of the EAPC/IASP algorithm compared with the Neuropathic Special Interest Group grading system (gold standard) and to describe patients' sensory profile with quantitative sensory testing (QST). Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study conducted in a palliative care and pain outpatient clinic. Patients with cancer pain intensity ≥3 (numerical rating scale 0-10) were eligible. The palliative care physician applied the EAPC/IASP algorithm as a grading system to diagnose probable or definite NcP, and an independent investigator applied the gold standard and performed the QST. Sensitivity and specificity of the EAPC/IASP algorithm were measured in comparison with the gold standard results. Kruskal-Wallis and unequal variance independent-samples Results: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled from August 2020 to March 2023. Sensitivity and specificity for the EAPC/IASP algorithm were 85% (95% CI 70.2-94.3) and 98.3% (95% CI 90.8-100), respectively. Patients with NcP in contrast to patients without NcP showed cold hypoesthesia ( Conclusion: The results indicate a good performance of the EAPC/IASP algorithm in diagnosing NcP and the QST discriminated well between patients with and without NcP.
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.