Diagnostic accuracy of an identification tool for localized neuropathic pain based on the IASP criteria

Recent trends in acupuncture for chronic pain: A bibliometric analysis and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture has been increasingly used in patients with chronic pain, yet no bibliometric analysis of acupuncture studies for chronic pain exists.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the characteristics, hotspots and frontiers of global scientific output in acupuncture research for chronic pain over the past decade.

METHODS

We retrieved publications on acupuncture for chronic pain published from 2011 to 2022 from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-expanded) of the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). The co-occurrence relationships of journals/countries/institutions/authors/keywords were performed using VOSviewer V6.1.2, and CiteSpace V1.6.18 analyzed the clustering and burst analysis of keywords and co-cited references.

RESULTS

A total of 1616 articles were retrieved. The results showed that the number of annual publications on acupuncture for chronic pain has increased over time, with the main types of literature being original articles (1091 articles, 67.5 %) and review articles (351 articles, 21.7 %). China had the most publications (598 articles, 37 %), with Beijing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (93 articles, 5.8 %) and Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ranked first (169 articles, 10.45 %) as the most prolific affiliate and journal, respectively. Liang FR was the most productive author (43 articles), and the article published by Vickers Andrew J in 2012 had the highest number of citations (625 citations). Recently, "acupuncture" and "pain" appeared most frequently. The hot topics in acupuncture for chronic pain based on keywords clustering analysis were experimental design, hot diseases, interventions, and mechanism studies. According to burst analysis, the main research frontiers were functional connectivity (FC), depression, and risk.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an in-depth perspective on acupuncture for chronic pain studies, revealing pivotal points, research hotspots, and research trends. Valuable ideas are provided for future research activities.

Considerations on the Obstacles That Lead to Slow Recruitment in a Pain Management Clinical Trial: Experiences from the Belgian PELICAN (PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain) Pragmatic Study

Background

A qualitative evaluation study of the prematurely terminated PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain (PELICAN) study was performed. The PELICAN study aimed to examine pain management for localized neuropathic pain (LNP), as epidemiological figures have shown a high percentage of LNP patients in Belgium. The study compared systemic and topical medications according to pain relief, adverse effects, and several measures of quality of life.

Objective

Achieving better study patient recruitment through qualitative research. To investigate and determine the causes of the observed recruitment problems in the PELICAN study, pain centers involved in the study as well as nonrecruiting pain centers were included. Furthermore, it aimed to highlight the positive and negative lessons learned from the conducted study and the number of obstacles the team had to overcome.

Methods

A qualitative study, using a mixed methods approach, was performed. Multiple pain centers in Belgium completed an online survey, after which a structured interview was conducted to elaborate the responses in more detail. The broad topics of these meetings were feedback about the study, reviewing survey answers, and actions undertaken to enhance recruitment.

Results

Different factors contributed to the low recruitment rate in the PELICAN study, such as limited and late referral from the general practitioners to the Belgian pain centers, insufficient internal referrals from nonpain specialists, lack of specific expertise on LNP in some centers, scarcity of staff, limited reimbursement to administer complex analgesic schemes, overestimation of the patient population, and the reluctance of patients to participate in pain research. Additionally, shortcomings in the implemented study design and the need for more logistical investments were identified.

Conclusion

The findings of the qualitative study demonstrate the need for further, more varied LNP research in Belgium, not limited to pharmacological studies. It also sheds important light on the recruitment obstacles that may be faced during these studies. Future studies could support this research by offering better proposals for feasibility and recruitment, for instance, by designing and conducting a compelling pilot study or applying social media during the recruitment phase. Clinical Trials. This trial is registered with NCT03348735. EUDRACT number 2018-003617-17.

Top 100 Most-Cited Papers in Neuropathic Pain From 2000 to 2020: A Bibliometric Study

Background: Neuropathic pain research has grown impressively in the past two decades, as evidenced by improvements in research quality and increments in the number of research papers. In views of this situation, the use of quantitative measurements to analyze and characterize existing research has become imperative. The aim of this research is to identify and analyze the 100 most-cited papers in neuropathic pain research.

Methods: Neuropathic pain-related articles published between 2000 and 2020 were screened from Web of Science (WOS) by using the following subject terms: TI = (Neuralgia$ OR Neurodynia$ OR “Neuropathic pain” OR sciatica OR “Nerve pain$”). The publications were ranked in a descending order on the basis of citation counts, and the top 100 most-cited neuropathic pain papers were determined. Subsequently, we conducted a bibliometric study to determine the authors, journals, countries, and institutions that contributed the most to the top 100 neuropathic pain lists; describe the keywords and hotspots of the top 100 most-cited papers; and explore the factors associated with successful citations.

Results: The top 100 most-cited papers were published from 2000 to 2017, and 2003 had the largest number of published papers (n = 16). The mean number of citations per paper was 480.72, with a range of 262–1,569. Forty-four kinds of journals contributed to the top 100 most-cited papers, which were predominantly published in “Pain” (n = 23). The USA was determined to be the leader of neuropathic pain research in terms of quality and quantity.

Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive list of the most influential papers on neuropathic pain and demonstrates the important advances in this field to help understand academic concerns and the directions of technological innovations in neuropathic pain worldwide.

Localised neuropathic pain in the primary care setting: a cross-sectional study of prevalence, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, quality of life and sleep performance

BACKGROUND

Localised Neuropathic Pain (LNP) is challenging to diagnose and manage in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, quality of life and sleep performance of patients with LNP and estimate its prevalence in primary care.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study in 4 European countries. Patients were identified using a screening tool for LNP. Patients completed the EQ-5D VAS score and Chronic Pain Sleep Inventory (CPSI).

RESULTS

There were 1030 LNP patients for analysis. They presented a median pain intensity of 6.0 (IQR 4.0-7.0) with a median duration of 30.9 months (IQR 12.0-75.3), despite 97% receiving pain treatment. Main sites affected were the limbs (62% upper/58% lower) and spine (41%). Main aetiologies were neuropathic low back pain (47%), post-surgical neuropathic pain (17%), and diabetic poly-neuropathy (12%). Thirty percent received a single analgesic (2% topical), while combinations comprised 43% systemic-systemic, 24% topical-systemic, 1% topical-topical. Medications included NSAIDs (45%), anticonvulsants (38%), WHO step 2 opioids (35%), and topical analgesics (27%). In the previous 6 months, 40% had switched treatment. The mean (SD) EQ-5D VAS score was 58 (22.3) and the mean (SD) EQ-5D summary score (UK tariff) was 0.62 (0.25). Patients had a CPSI mean index of 41/100, and sleeping pills were used by 33% of patients. The standardized prevalence of LNP by age and sex was 2.01% in the general population and 43.3% among chronic pain patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Many LNP patients reported pain intensities of six on a ten-point scale in average for durations longer than 2.5 years, with quality of life and sleep performance affected, with frequent treatment combinations and switches, suggesting suboptimal pain management.

Current Evidence for Diagnosis of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Standardized Terminology Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate and summarize current evidence for diagnosis of common conditions causing low back pain and to propose standardized terminology use.

METHODS

A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted from inception through December 2018. Electronic databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Methodological quality was assessed with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists.

RESULTS

Of the 3995 articles screened, 36 (8 systematic reviews and 28 individual studies) met final eligibility criteria. Diagnostic criteria for identifying likely discogenic, sacroiliac joint, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain are supported by clinical studies using injection-confirmed tissue provocation or anesthetic procedures. Diagnostic criteria for myofascial pain, sensitization (central and peripheral), and radicular pain are supported by expert consensus-level evidence. Criteria for radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication are supported by studies using combined expert-level consensus and imaging findings.

CONCLUSION

The absence of high-quality, objective, gold-standard diagnostic methods limits the accuracy of current evidence-based criteria and results in few high-quality studies with a low risk of bias in patient selection and reference standard diagnosis. These limitations suggest practitioners should use evidence-based criteria to inform working diagnoses rather than definitive diagnoses for low back pain. To avoid the unnecessary complexity and confusion created by multiple overlapping and nonspecific terms, adopting International Association for the Study of Pain terminology and definitions is recommended.

Development of an Evidence-Based Practical Diagnostic Checklist and Corresponding Clinical Exam for Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to use scientific evidence to develop a practical diagnostic checklist and corresponding clinical exam for patients presenting with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

An iterative process was conducted to develop a diagnostic checklist and clinical exam for LBP using evidence-based diagnostic criteria. The checklist and exam were informed by a systematic review focused on summarizing current research evidence for office-based clinical evaluation of common conditions causing LBP.

RESULTS

Diagnostic categories contained within the checklist and exam include nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, and sensitization. Nociceptive pain subcategories include discogenic, myofascial, sacroiliac, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain. Neuropathic pain categories include neurogenic claudication, radicular pain, radiculopathy, and peripheral entrapment (piriformis and thoracolumbar syndrome). Sensitization contains 2 subtypes, central and peripheral sensitization. The diagnostic checklist contains individual diagnostic categories containing evidence-based criteria, applicable examination procedures, and checkboxes to record clinical findings. The checklist organizes and displays evidence for or against a working diagnosis. The checklist may help to ensure needed information is obtained from a patient interview and exam in a variety of primary spine care settings (eg, medical, chiropractic).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence informs reasonable working diagnoses for many conditions causing or contributing to LBP. A practical diagnostic process including an exam and checklist is offered to guide clinical evaluation and demonstrate evidence for working diagnoses in clinical settings.

The publication trend of neuropathic pain in the world and China: a 20-years bibliometric analysis

Background

There has been tremendous change on neuropathic pain research in the past 20 years in China and around the world. We analyzed the global trend of neuropathic pain research and compared China’s quantity and quality of neuropathic pain-related publications with other developed countries.

Methods

Using terms “neuropathic pain”, we retrieved related publications from the Web of Science (WOS) database and PubMed database. From different aspects, such as the number of papers, total citations, average citations per item, H-index, research types, orientation, institutions, journals and funding, global neuropathic pain publications were classified and analyzed.

Results

From 1998 to 2017, 21,733 articles regarding neuropathic pain research were published worldwide. Of these, 9.394% were contributed by authors from Chinese institutions, which followed USA and ranked second. However, the quality indicators of publications, including total citations, average citations per item and H-index, were relatively low in China. High contribution journals and the 10 most-cited articles on neuropathic pain in world and China were also listed, which also can reflect the quality of neuropathic pain. Based on National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), basic research was the main articles type, accounting for 32.91% of China’s neuropathic pain research.

Conclusion

Global neuropathic pain research increased rapidly during the 1998 to 2017 period. The USA was still the leader of neuropathic research. Although China had made great achievements, there was a significant gap in the high-quality studies between China and other leading countries.