Assessment of Diagnostic Tools Used to Identify Patients With Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review

Abstract

using the narrative analysis approach. Results: 17 publications met the inclusion criteria (8 randomized controlled trials, 1 case-controlled trial, 6 qualitative and 2 economic evaluation studies of moderate to high quality), which represented 10 studies. Disease activity was the most common measure of effectiveness with NLC being superior (n= 3) or equal (n= 3) to comparator. Acceptability was assessed in 6 studies; patients were more (n= 4) or equally (n= 1) satisfied with NLC compared to single-provider care and less satisfied compared to team care (n= 1). NLC was found to be safe (n= 2), with no difference in blood tests and disease activity. With regard to efficiency, mixed data on cost of NLC was reported with NLC being equivalent or less costly than traditional models (n= 3). Quantitative measures of accessibility and appropriateness were not found. Although in qualitative studies patients found NLC provided improved continuity of care (n= 3) and education and support (n= 4). ConClusions: NLC for RA patients is effective, acceptable, and safe. More information regarding accessibility, appropriateness and efficiency of this model, including its cost-effectiveness and the impact on patient flow, is needed.