Background: Low-back pain (LBP) pathophysiological conditions include nociceptive back pain, somatic referred pain, radicular pain (RP), and radiculopathy. Differential diagnosis is challenging; guidance may come from patients' thorough clinical history and physical examination and, particularly for lumbar RP, from the evaluation of subjective responses of injured lumbar nerves to a strain applied at the buttock (buttock applied strain [BUAS] test). Methods: In a sample of 395 consecutive patients with LBP, sensitivity, specificity, and prior probability (positive predictive values [PPVs] and negative predictive values [NPVs]) of the BUAS test were evaluated against 2 reference tests: the straight leg raising test (SLRT) and the painDETECT (PD) questionnaire. Multinomial logistic regression (MLR) and v 2 analyses were used to evaluate the BUAS test outcomes' dependence upon independent variables (gender, age group, pain localization, SLRT outcomes, and PD outcomes). Cohen's kappa statistic was used to assess inter-rater agreement. Results: Compared with the PD questionnaire, the BUAS test showed a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 82%; compared with the SLRT, the BUAS test showed a sensitivity of 82%, NPV of 82%, specificity of 40%, and PPV of 40%. Inter-rater agreement of Cohen's kappa was 0.911. Significant associations were found between BUAS test outcomes and pain localization, SLRT outcomes, and PD outcomes, but not with the predictors gender or age group. MLR showed significant congruent relationships between BUAS test and PD outcomes. Conclusion: Among patients with LBP, the BUAS test showed satisfactory sensitivity, specificity, prior probability, and inter-rater reliability; thus, it may be considered a useful adjunctive tool to diagnose RP in patients with LBP. For more generalized results, more research, in clinical settings other than pain clinics, is needed. &

No abstract

ObjectivesVariable prevalence and treatment of breakthrough pain (BTP) in different clinical contexts are partially due to the lack of reliable/validated diagnostic tools with prognostic capability. We report the statistical basis and performance analysis of a novel BTP scoring system based on the naïve Bayes classifier (NBC) approach and an 11-item IQ-BTP validated questionnaire. This system aims at classifying potential BTP presence in three likelihood classes: “High,” “Intermediate,” and “Low.”MethodsOut of a training set of n=120 mixed chronic pain patients, predictors associated with the BTP likelihood variables (Pearson’s χ2 and/or Fisher’s exact test) were employed for the NBC planning. Adjusting the binary classification to a three–likelihood classes case enabled the building of a scoring algorithm and to retrieve the score of each predictor’s answer options and the Patient’s Global Score (PGS). The latter medians were used to establish the NBC thresholds, needed to evaluate the scoring system performance (leave-one-out cross-validation).ResultsMedians of PGS in the “High,” “Intermediate,” and “Low” likelihood classes were 3.44, 1.53, and −2.84, respectively. Leading predictors for the model (based on score differences) were flair frequency (ΔS=1.31), duration (ΔS=5.25), and predictability (ΔS=1.17). Percentages of correct classification were 63.6% for the “High” and of 100.0% for either the “Intermediate” and “Low” likelihood classes; overall accuracy of the scoring system was 90.9%.ConclusionThe NBC-based BTP scoring system showed satisfactory performance in classifying potential BTP in three likelihood classes. The reliability, flexibility, and simplicity of this statistical approach may have significant relevance for BTP epidemiology and management. These results need further impact studies to generalize our findings.

The I-MPSS showed satisfactory psychometric and validation properties. With adequate feasibility, it enabled the screening of mixed non-cancer-pain outpatients in three chronicity/prognostic stages. Results are sufficient to warrant its use for a subsequent impact study as a prognostic model and screening tool for referring pain patients.

Biased pain evaluation due to automated heuristics driven by symptom uncertainty may undermine pain treatment; medical evidence moderators are thought to play a role in such circumstances. We explored, in this cross-sectional survey, the effect of such moderators (e.g., nurse awareness of patients' pain experience and treatment) on the agreement between n = 862 inpatients' self-reported pain and n = 115 nurses' pain ratings using a numerical rating scale. We assessed the mean of absolute difference, agreement (κ-statistics), and correlation (Spearman rank) of inpatients and nurses' pain ratings and analyzed congruence categories' (CCs: underestimation, congruence, and overestimation) proportions and dependence upon pain categories for each medical evidence moderator (χ 2 analysis). Pain ratings agreement and correlation were limited; the CCs proportions were further modulated by the studied moderators. Medical evidence promoted in nurses overestimation of low and underestimation of high inpatients' self-reported pain. Knowledge of the negative influence of automated heuristics driven by symptoms uncertainty and medical-evidence moderators on pain evaluation may render pain assessment more accurate.

Background: Differential diagnosis of low back pain (LBP) is complex and a prominent issue at all health-care levels; guidance may come from patients’ history cues and clinical examination signs. Human and animal studies report that diagnosis of lumbar radicular pain (LRP) may come from evaluating subjective responses of injured lumbar nerves to a strain applied at the buttock. The Buttock Applied Strain (BUAS-test) test may guide the differential diagnosis of LBP. Following an ex-adiuvantibus criterion, clinical improvement of LRP, diagnosed with the BUAS-test and congruently treated, may support this test diagnostic ability. Methods: Among 258 LRP patients, who, upon first visit (V1), tested positive on the BUAS-test (with/without positive Straight Leg Raising Test, SLRT), the effect of gabapentin prescription on painDETECT (PD) questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) outcomes was quantified in the follow-up visit (V2). To support BUAS-test diagnostic ability, we hypothesized that, at V2, >50% of the sample would present negative PD outcome, significant ( t-test) and ⩾2 points V2-V1 differences for each of the BPI-item’s score. We used multinomial logistic regression (MLR) and χ2 analyses to evaluate the PD-V2 outcomes’ dependence upon independent variables. Results: Of the sample, 77% reported a negative PD-V2 outcome. V2-V1 differences of all BPI items were significant and >2 points. PD-V2 outcomes showed significant associations with SLRT-V1 and PD-V1, respectively, but not with gender, age group or pain site. MLR showed a significant relationship between SLRT-V1 and PD-V2 outcomes. Conclusion: Among LRP patients, diagnosed by the BUAS-test and treated with gabapentin, all prespecified endpoints were reached. These results may be considered a piece of ex-adiuvantibus evidence for the BUAS-test ability to diagnose LRP. While positive BUAS-test implies potential LRP, the co-presence with positive SLRT may imply a severer LRP condition. Further prospective research, in different settings and direct clinical measures, is needed.

While no oxymorphone or noroxymorphone metabolites were detected, limited dialyzability of oxycodone and noroxycodone was documented along with insignificant postdialysis pain increment. This evidence will contribute toward considerations as to the safety of the use of oxycodone in dialysis patients in the future.

The CoDem protocol was shown to be effective and reasonably tolerated for titration for moderate/severe cancer pain relief in both opioid-naïve or opioid-tolerant cancer in-patients. This pilot assessment warrants prospective and comparative studies with larger samples for more generalized results.