Few studies have directly compared the clinical features of neuropathic and non-neuropathic pains. For this purpose, the French Neuropathic Pain Group developed a clinician-administered questionnaire named DN4 consisting of both sensory descriptors and signs related to bedside sensory examination. This questionnaire was used in a prospective study of 160 patients presenting with pain associated with a definite neurological or somatic lesion. The most common aetiologies of nervous lesions (n=89) were traumatic nerve injury, post herpetic neuralgia and post stroke pain. Non-neurological lesions (n=71) were represented by osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthropathies and mechanical low back pain. Each patient was seen independently by two experts in order to confirm the diagnosis of neuropathic or non-neuropathic pain. The prevalence of pain descriptors and sensory dysfunctions were systematically compared in the two groups of patients. The analysis of the psychometric properties of the DN4 questionnaire included: face validity, inter-rater reliability, factor analysis and logistic regression to identify the discriminant properties of items or combinations of items for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. We found that a relatively small number of items are sufficient to discriminate neuropathic pain. The 10-item questionnaire developed in the present study constitutes a new diagnostic instrument, which might be helpful both in clinical research and daily practice.

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a psychophysical method used to quantify somatosensory function in response to controlled stimuli in healthy subjects and patients. Although QST shares similarities with the quantitative assessment of hearing or vision, which is extensively used in clinical practice and research, it has not gained a large acceptance among clinicians for many reasons, and in significant part because of the lack of information about standards for performing QST, its potential utility, and interpretation of results. A consensus meeting was convened by the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain (NeuPSIG) to formulate recommendations for conducting QST in clinical practice and research. Research studies have confirmed the utility of QST for the assessment and monitoring of somatosensory deficits, particularly in diabetic and small fiber neuropathies; the assessment of evoked pains (mechanical and thermal allodynia or hyperalgesia); and the diagnosis of sensory neuropathies. Promising applications include the assessment of evoked pains in large-scale clinical trials and the study of conditioned pain modulation. In clinical practice, we recommend the use QST for screening for small and large fiber neuropathies; monitoring of somatosensory deficits; and monitoring of evoked pains, allodynia, and hyperalgesia. QST is not recommended as a stand-alone test for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. For the conduct of QST in healthy subjects and in patients, we recommend use of predefined standardized stimuli and instructions, validated algorithms of testing, and reference values corrected for anatomical site, age, and gender. Interpretation of results should always take into account the clinical context, and patients with language and cognitive difficulties, anxiety, or litigation should not be considered eligible for QST. When appropriate standards, as discussed here, are applied, QST can provide important and unique information about the functional status of somatosensory system, which would be complementary to already existing clinical methods.

No abstract

Background: Cluster headache (CH) is a relatively rare disease and episodic CH is more frequent than chronic CH. Few studies have described the characteristics of patients with chronic CH. Methods: This was a descriptive study carried out by eight tertiary care specialist headache centres in France participating in the Observatory of Migraine and Headaches (OMH). From 2002 to 2005, OMH collected data from 2074 patients with CH, of whom 316 had chronic CH. From January to June 2005, 113 patients with chronic CH were interviewed using standardised questionnaires during a consultation. Results: The male to female ratio was 4.65:1. Median age was 42 years. The majority of patients were smokers or former smokers (87%). 46% had primary chronic CH (chronic at onset) and 54% secondary chronic CH (evolving from episodic CH). Most patients had unilateral pain during attacks and 7% had sometimes bilateral pain during an attack. 48% reported a persisting painful state between attacks. Symptoms anteceding pain onset (mainly discomfort/diffuse pain, exhaustion, mood disorders) and auras were reported by 55% and 20% of patients, respectively. The functional impact of chronic CH was estimated as severe by 74% of patients, and 75.7% suffered from anxiety, as assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. There was no substantial difference in clinical presentation between primary and secondary CH. Discussion: This study confirms the existence of auras and interictal signs and symptoms in patients with chronic CH, and male sex and smoking as CH risk factors. Primary and secondary chronic CH appear equally prevalent. Male sex does not appear to favour the shift from episodic to chronic CH.