Discriminating between neuropathic pain and sensory hypersensitivity using the Chronic Pain Questions (CPQ)

Impact of Electronic Chronic Pain Questions on patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilization, and attitudes toward eCPQ use among patients and physicians: prospective pragmatic study in a US general practice setting

Objective

The Electronic Chronic Pain Questions (eCPQ) has been developed to help healthcare providers systematically capture chronic pain data. This study evaluated the impact of using the eCPQ on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in a primary care setting, and patient and physician perceptions regarding use of, and satisfaction with, the eCPQ.

Methods

This was a prospective pragmatic study conducted at the Internal Medicine clinic within the Henry Ford Health (HFH) Detroit campus between June 2017 and April 2020. Patients (aged ≥18 years) attending the clinic for chronic pain were allocated to an Intervention Group to complete the eCPQ in addition to regular care, or a control group to receive regular care only. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and a Patient Global Assessment were assessed at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months study visits. HCRU data were extracted from the HFH database. Telephone qualitative interviews were conducted with randomly selected patients and physicians who used the eCPQ.

Results

Two hundred patients were enrolled, 79 in each treatment group completed all 3 study visits. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in PROs and HCRU between the 2 groups. In qualitative interviews, physicians and patients reported the eCPQ as useful, and using the eCPQ improved patient-clinician interactions.

Conclusion

Adding the eCPQ to regular care for patients with chronic pain did not significantly impact the PROs assessed in this study. However, qualitative interviews suggested that the eCPQ was a well-accepted and potentially useful tool from a patient and physician perspective. By using the eCPQ, patients were better prepared when they attended a primary care visit for their chronic pain and the quality of patient-physician communication was increased.

Methods to discriminate between mechanism-based categories of pain experienced in the musculoskeletal system: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Mechanism-based classification of pain has been advocated widely to aid tailoring of interventions for individuals experiencing persistent musculoskeletal pain. Three pain mechanism categories (PMCs) are defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain: nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain. Discrimination between them remains challenging. This study aimed to build on a framework developed to converge the diverse literature of PMCs to systematically review methods purported to discriminate between them; synthesise and thematically analyse these methods to identify the convergence and divergence of opinion; and report validation, psychometric properties, and strengths/weaknesses of these methods. The search strategy identified articles discussing methods to discriminate between mechanism-based categories of pain experienced in the musculoskeletal system. Studies that assessed the validity of methods to discriminate between categories were assessed for quality. Extraction and thematic analysis were undertaken on 184 articles. Data synthesis identified 200 methods in 5 themes: clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing, imaging, diagnostic and laboratory testing, and pain-type questionnaires. Few methods have been validated for discrimination between PMCs. There was general convergence but some disagreement regarding findings that discriminate between PMCs. A combination of features and methods, rather than a single method, was generally recommended to discriminate between PMCs. Two major limitations were identified: an overlap of findings of methods between categories due to mixed presentations and many methods considered discrimination between 2 PMCs but not others. The results of this review provide a foundation to refine methods to differentiate mechanisms for musculoskeletal pain.

Dimensionality and Reliability of the Central Sensitization Inventory in a Pooled Multicountry Sample

Central sensitization (CS) involves the amplification of neural signaling within the central nervous system, which evokes pain hypersensitivity. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) assesses 25 overlapping health-related symptom dimensions that have been reported to be associated with CS-related disorders. Previous studies have reported satisfactory test-retest reliability and internal consistency, but factor analyses have exhibited conflicting results in different language versions. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to thoroughly examine the dimensionality and reliability of the CSI, with pooled data from 1,987 individuals, collected in several countries. The principal component analysis suggested that 1 general factor of CS best described the structure. A subsequent confirmatory factor analysis revealed that a bifactor model, which accounted for the covariance among CSI items, with regard to 1 general factor and 4 orthogonal factors, fit the CSI structure better than the unidimensional and the 4-factor models. Additional analyses indicated substantial reliability for the general factor (ie, Cronbach α = .92; ω = .95; and ω hierarchical = .89). Reliability results for the 4 specific factors were considered too low to be used for subscales. The results of this study clearly suggest that only total CSI scores should be used and reported.

PERSPECTIVE

As far as we know, this is the first study that has examined the factor structure and reliability of the CSI in a large multicountry sample. The CSI is currently considered the leading self-report measure of CS-related symptoms worldwide.