Neuropathic pain evaluation tools

Dach, Fabíola; Teixeira, Rosimary Amorim; Gouvêa, Áquila Lopes

doi:10.5935/1806-0013.20160041

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) of the Internal Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) recommended five questionnaires for screening neuropathic pain (12): Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) (7), ID pain (20), Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms (LANSS) (5), pain DETECT questionnaire (10), and the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) (17). Although up to 20% of neuropathic pain cases are not identified by these questionnaires and such questionnaires cannot be used to replace clinical diagnosis, they are used widely for standard assessment of symptoms in clinical practice and clinical trials (9).…”

Section: █ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuropathic pain questionnaire and neuropathic pain questionnaire-short form: translation, reliability, and validation study of the turkish version

Yurdakul

Rezvanı²,

Küçükakkaş³

et al. 2019

Turkish Neurosurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM: To perform reliability and validity studies of the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) and NPQ-Short Form (SF) in the Turkish language. MATERIAL and METHODS: The Turkish translation and cross-cultural validation were performed. Then, 101 patients (36 males, 65 females; mean age: 50.4 ± 14.49; range: 20-87) with chronic pain were asked to fill out a pack of questionnaires, including the NPQ, NPQ-SF, Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4), Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms (LANSS), and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). A subgroup of 41 patients (11 males, 30 females) completed the NPQ and NPQ-SF for the second time after 3 days by telephone. Internal consistency was tested by Cronbach's-α and test-retest reliability was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Construct validity was assessed by comparing NPQ, NPQ-SF, and NRS. Concurrent validity was tested by comparing NPQ, NPQ-SF, DN4, and LANSS. RESULTS: Internal consistency by Cronbach's-α was 0.84 and 0.67 for the NPQ and NPQ-SF, respectively, indicating adequate and low internal consistency, respectively. ICC was 0.96 (p<0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-0.97) for NPQ and 0.97 (p<0.001; 95% CI, 0.95-0.97) for NPQ-SF, indicating a high test-retest reliability for both questionnaires. CONCLUSION: The Turkish versions of NPQ and NPQ-SF were reliable and valid for patients with chronic pain. To our knowledge, this is the first Turkish adaptation and test of the reliability and validity of the NPQ and NPQ-SF (short-form). These questionnaires could potentially help clinicians who seek to assess neuropathic pain for clinical and investigational purposes.

show abstract

Section: █ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuropathic pain questionnaire and neuropathic pain questionnaire-short form: translation, reliability, and validation study of the turkish version

Yurdakul

Rezvanı²,

Küçükakkaş³

et al. 2019

Turkish Neurosurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The DN4 (Douleur neuropathique 4 questions), an NP screening tool that is also useful in differentiating NP from nociceptive pain, showed a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 90%. 13 In our study, it was revealed that, even though there was no statistically significant difference, orthopedists who graduated longer ago had less knowledge of NP diagnostic tools. From this arises Table 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Evaluation of Neuropathic Pain Scale Knowledge

Lopes

Angelim²,

Sousa

2019

Coluna/Columna

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Neuropathic pain (ND) is defined as “one that results from injury or disease that directly affects the somatosensory system”, differing from other types of pain in terms of symptoms, mechanisms and therapeutics, being the early diagnosis prerequisite for the appropriate management. Pain evaluation scales are very useful in clinical diagnosis. It is critical that orthopedic doctors are familiar with such tools. The objective was to evaluate whether the orthopedic physicians in Salvador know the tools of evaluation and clinical diagnosis of neuropathic pain (ND), as well as to determine which method of evaluation of ND is most used in their clinical practice. Methods: Data were analyzed from 74 orthopedic physicians working in the city of Salvador, who were interviewed from January to November 2017. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire consisting of subjective and objective questions and analyzed with SPSS 22.0 software. Results: Among the interviewed physicians, 41.9% knew some of the scales and, of these, 64.5% used in their clinical practice, being 70.3% of the total sample. The LANSS scale was used by 25.8% of the physicians in their practice as a tool to diagnose neuropathic pain, 22.6% used DN4 and 35.5% did not use any. Conclusions: The orthopedic physicians know little about the tools of evaluation and diagnosis of neuropathic pain and those with greater time of activity know less these tools than those who have less time. Many who know the tools do not use them in their clinical practice. LANSS and DN4 are the most commonly used scales. Level of Evidence III; Cross Sectional Study.

show abstract

“…In an attempt to correlate the results of different neuropathic pain scores, other investigators found good correlations between the DN4, LANSS, Neuropathic pain questionnaire (NPQ), and painDETECT tools . Even though results from previous studies indicate a good relationship of various pain diagnostic tools (including DN4 and painDETECT scores) with clinical diagnosis, other investigators found that patients' self‐assessment of cancer pain characteristics quite often does not correlate with physicians' assessments of neuropathic pain …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%