BackgroundQuantitative sensory testing (QST) is a diagnostic tool for the assessment of the somatosensory system. To establish QST as an outcome measure for clinical trials, the question of how similar the measurements are over time is crucial. Therefore, long-term reliability and limits of agreement of the standardized QST protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain were tested.MethodsQST on the lower back and hand dorsum (dominant hand) were assessed twice in 22 healthy volunteers (10 males and 12 females; mean age: 46.6±13.0 years), with sessions separated by 10.0±2.9 weeks. All measurements were performed by one investigator. To investigate long-term reliability and agreement of QST, differences between the two measurements, correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland–Altman plots (limits of agreement), and standard error of measurement were used.ResultsMost parameters of the QST were reliable over 10 weeks in healthy volunteers: Almost-perfect ICCs were observed for heat pain threshold (hand) and mechanical pain sensitivity (back). Substantial ICCs were observed for heat pain threshold (back), pressure pain threshold (back), mechanical pain sensitivity (hand), and vibration detection threshold (back and hand). Some QST parameters, such as cold detection threshold, exhibited low ICCs, but also very low variability. Generally, QST measures exhibited narrow limits of agreement in the Bland–Altman plots.ConclusionThe standardized QST protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain is feasible to be used in treatment trials. Moreover, defining a statistically meaningful change is possible, which is a prerequisite for the use of QST in clinical trials as well as in long-term investigations of disease progression.

Chronic pain remains a daunting clinical challenge, affecting 30% of people in the United States and 20% of the global population. People meeting this challenge by achieving wellbeing while living with pain are a virtually untapped source of wisdom about this persistent problem. Employing a concurrent mixed-methods design, we studied 80 people living with chronic pain with “positive stories to tell” using semi-structured interviews and standardized questionnaires. In-depth interviews focused on what helped, what hindered, how they changed, and advice for others in similar circumstances. Major qualitative themes included acceptance, openness, self-efficacy, hope, perseverance, self-regulation, kinesthetic awareness, holistic approaches and integrative therapies, self-care, spirituality, social support, and therapeutic lifestyle behaviors such as music, writing, art, gardening, and spending time in nature. Themes of growth and wisdom included enhanced relationships, perspective, clarity, strength, gratitude, compassion, new directions, and spiritual change. Based on narrative analysis of the interviews and Ardelt's Three-Dimensional Wisdom Model, participants were divided into 2 groups: 59 wisdom exemplars and 21 nonexemplars. Non-exemplar themes were largely negative and in direct contrast to the exemplar themes. Quantitatively, wisdom exemplars scored significantly higher in Openness and Agreeableness and lower in Neuroticism compared to non-exemplars. Wisdom exemplars also scored higher in Wisdom, Gratitude, Forgiveness, and Posttraumatic Growth than nonexemplars, and more exemplars used integrative therapies compared to the non-exemplars. As a whole, the exemplar narratives illustrate a Positive Approach Model (PAM) for living well with pain, which allows for a more expansive pain narrative, provides positive role models for patients and clinicians, and contributes to a broader theoretical perspective on persistent pain.

No abstract

Background Recruitment and inclusion procedures in clinical trials are time critical. This holds particularly true for studies investigating patients with fluctuating symptom patterns, like those with chronic neck pain. In a feasibility study on neck pain, we found a clinically relevant decrease in pain ratings within the recruitment period. This paper analyses the phenomenon and gives recommendations for recruitment procedures in clinical trials on pain. Methods Changes in pain intensity scores of 44 chronic neck pain patients (6 males and 36 females; mean age: 45.3±13.2 years) between the first telephone contact and baseline assessment were analyzed. Inclusion criterion was a mean pain intensity of ≥40 on a 0–100 numerical rating scale during the last three months. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and parametric/non-parametric correlation coefficients. Results Average pain intensity score decreased significantly from 60.3±13.3 at telephone interview to 38.1±21.7 at baseline assessment. This represents a relative change of 36.8%. A weak but significant negative correlation was found between number of days between assessments and pain rating differences. There was a positive correlation between change of pain intensity and the pain level at the first contact, indicating that the decreased pain ratings over time were also dependent on the initial pain rating. Conclusions The clinically significant changes in pain intensity were weakly related to waiting time and moderately dependent on initial pain intensity, suggesting regression to the mean. The natural course of the disease and the Hawthorne effect are also discussed as contributing factors.

Background: This commentary presents the most impactful, shared priorities for research investment across the licensed complementary and integrative health (CIH) disciplines according to the Academic Consortium for Complementary and Alternative Health Care (ACCAHC). These are (1) research on whole disciplines; (2) costs; and (3) building capacity within the disciplines' universities, colleges, and programs. The issue of research capacity is emphasized.Discussion: ACCAHC urges expansion of investment in the development of researchers who are graduates of CIH programs, particularly those with a continued association with accredited CIH schools. To increase capacity of CIH discipline researchers, we recommend National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) to (1) continue and expand R25 grants for education in evidence-based healthcare and evidence-informed practice at CIH schools; (2) work to limit researcher attrition from CIH institutions by supporting career development grants for clinicians from licensed CIH fields who are affiliated with and dedicated to continuing to work in accredited CIH schools; (3) fund additional stand-alone grants to CIH institutions that already have a strong research foundation, and collaborate with appropriate National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes and centers to create infrastructure in these institutions; (4) stimulate higher percentages of grants to conventional centers to require or strongly encourage partnership with CIH institutions or CIH researchers based at CIH institutions, or give priority to those that do; (5) fund research conferences, workshops, and symposia developed through accredited CIH schools, including those that explore best methods for studying the impact of whole disciplines; and (6) following the present NIH policy of giving priority to new researchers, we urge NCCIH to give a marginal benefit to grant applications from CIH clinician-researchers at CIH academic/research institutions, to acknowledge that CIH concepts require specialized expertise to translate to conventional perspectives.Summary: We commend NCCIH for its previous efforts to support high-quality research in the CIH disciplines. As NCCIH develops its 2016–2020 strategic plan, these recommendations to prioritize research based on whole disciplines, encourage collection of outcome data related to costs, and further support capacity-building within CIH institutions remain relevant and are a strategic use of funds that can benefit the nation's health.