Patients' perspective on the chronic pain classification in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11): results from an international web-based survey

ABSTRACT

The 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) aims at improving the lives of persons with the lived experience of chronic pain by providing clearly defined and clinically useful diagnoses that can reduce stigma, facilitate communication, and improve access to pain management, among others. The aim of this study was to assess the perspective of people with chronic pain on these diagnoses. An international web-based survey was distributed among persons with the lived experience of chronic pain. After having seen an information video, participants rated the diagnoses on 8 endorsement scales (eg, diagnostic fit, stigma) that ranged from -5 to +5 with 0 representing the neutral point of no expected change. Overall ratings and differences between participants with chronic primary pain (CPP) and chronic secondary pain (CSP) were analyzed. N = 690 participants were included in the data analysis. The ratings on all endorsement scales were significantly higher than the neutral point of 0. The highest ratings were obtained for "openness" (2.95 ± 1.93) and "overall opinion" (1.87 ± 1.98). Participants with CPP and CSP did not differ in their ratings; however, those with CSP indicated an improved diagnostic fit of the new diagnoses, whereas participants with CPP rated the diagnostic fit of the new diagnoses similar to the fit of their current diagnoses. These results show that persons with the lived experience of chronic pain accept and endorse the new diagnoses. This endorsement is an important indicator of the diagnoses' clinical utility and can contribute to implementation and advocacy.

Making chronic pain count: empirical support for the ICD-11 classification of chronic pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose is to review the evidence that has been collected with regard to the new classification of chronic pain. In 2022, the World Health Assembly endorsed the 11 th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), and with it a new classification of chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

The evidence from the formative field testing indicated that the categories were clearly delineated and the coverage of chronic pain excellent (<3% in remainder categories). Official WHO field tests showed that the classification works well within the technical parameters WHO classifications must conform to and outperformed the ICD-10 diagnoses in all respects. International field tests, in which clinicians diagnosed consecutive patients in settings of medium and high resources, showed substantial interrater reliability (κ = 0.596 to κ = 0.783) for the diagnoses and the clinicians rated their clinical utility as very high. Studies using complete hospital records demonstrated that with the information they contain, retrospective coding of the new diagnoses is possible and provides much more meaningful information than the ICD-10 diagnoses.

SUMMARY

The evidence supports the use of the new classification and highlights its informational gains - using it will contribute to making chronic pain count in many contexts.

The invisible cost of pain management by the current International Classification of Diseases coding system: a study in a tertiary care inpatient setting

ABSTRACT

The International Classification of Diseases ( ICD ) is applied worldwide for public health data collection among other use cases. However, the current version of the ICD ( ICD-10 ), to which the reimbursement system is linked in many countries, does not represent chronic pain properly. This study aims to compare the ICD-10 with the ICD-11 in hospitalized patients in terms of specificity, clinical utility, and reimbursement for pain management. The medical records of hospitalized patients consulted for pain management at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, were reviewed, and all pain-related diagnoses were coded into ICD-10 and ICD-11 . The data of 397 patients showed unspecified pain was coded 78% in the ICD-10 and only 0.5% in the ICD-11 version. The difference gap in the proportion of unspecified pain between the 2 versions is wider than in the outpatient setting. The 3 most common codes for ICD-10 were other chronic pain, low back pain, and pain in limb. The 3 most common codes for ICD-11 were chronic cancer pain, chronic peripheral neuropathic pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. As in many other countries, no pain-related ICD-10 codes were coded for routine reimbursement. The simulated reimbursement fee remained the same when adding 397 pain-related codings, even if the cost of pain management, such as cost of labor, existed. Compared with the ICD-10 version, the ICD-11 is more specific and makes pain diagnoses more visible. Thus, shifting from ICD-10 to ICD-11 has the potential to improve both the quality of care and the reimbursement for pain management.

Towards harmonizing the concepts and definitions of pain in the World Health Organization's Family of International Classifications

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Reliability and clinical utility of the chronic pain classification in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases from a global perspective: results from India, Cuba, and New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 persons and contributes substantially to the global burden of disease. The 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes a comprehensive classification of chronic pain. The aim of this ecological implementation field study was to evaluate the classification's interrater reliability and clinical utility in countries with different income levels. The study was conducted in 4 pain clinics in Cuba, India, and New Zealand. Twenty-one clinicians used the ICD-11 to diagnose and code n = 353 patients with chronic pain. Of these, 111 were assessed by 2 clinicians, and Fleiss' kappa was calculated to establish interrater reliability for any diagnosis assigned to ≥15 patients. The clinicians rated the clinical utility of all diagnoses. The interrater reliability could be calculated for 11 diagnoses. It was substantial for 10 diagnoses and moderate for 1 (kappa: 0.596-0.783). The mean clinical utility of the ICD-11 chronic pain diagnoses was rated as 8.45 ± 1.69/10. Clinical utility was rated higher for ICD-11 than for the commonly used classification systems (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.25) and differed between all centers (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.60). The utility of the ICD-11 diagnoses was rated higher than the commonly used diagnoses in Dunedin and Havana, and no difference was found in Kolkata and Hyderabad. The study showed the high interrater reliability of the new chronic pain diagnoses. The perceived clinical utility of the diagnoses indicates their superiority or equality compared with the classification systems currently used in pain clinics. These results suggest the global applicability of the classification in specialized pain treatment settings.

Classification of chronic pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11): results of the 2017 international World Health Organization field testing

ABSTRACT

Because chronic pain has been poorly represented in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) despite its significant contribution to the burden of disease worldwide, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) developed a classification of chronic pain that was included in the ICD-11 version as "MG30" and approved by the World Health Assembly in 2019. The objective of this field test was to determine how well the classification of chronic pain works in the context of the ICD-11. A web-based survey using the WHO-FiT platform recruited 177 healthcare professionals from all WHO regions. After a training on coding chronic pain hosted by the IASP Web site, participants evaluated 18 diagnostic codes (lines) of the 2017 frozen version of the ICD-11 and 12 vignettes (cases) describing chronic pain conditions. Correctness, ambiguity, and perceived difficulty of the coding were compared between the ICD-11 and the ICD-10 and the applicability of the morbidity rules for the ICD-11 verified. In the line coding, 43.0% of correct chronic pain diagnoses assigned with the ICD-10 contrasted with 63.2% with the ICD-11. Especially in cases in which the chronic pain is regarded as the symptom of an underlying disease, the ICD-11 (63.5%) commanded more correct diagnoses than the ICD-10 (26.8%). The case coding was on average 83.9% accurate, only in 1.6% of cases any difficulty was perceived. The morbidity rules were applied correctly in 74.1% of cases. From a coding perspective, the ICD-11 is superior to the ICD-10 in every respect, offering better accuracy, difficulty, and ambiguity in coding chronic pain conditions.

Not really nice: a commentary on the recent version of NICE guidelines [NG193: chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16s: assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary pain] by the Pain Net

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence provides evidence-based advice that guides clinical practice. We highlight major criticisms related to the new guideline for chronic primary pain.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence should revise their recent guideline to take into account all the available evidence on the treatment of chronic primary pain.

Classification algorithm for the International Classification of Diseases-11 chronic pain classification: development and results from a preliminary pilot evaluation

ABSTRACT

The International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11) chronic pain classification includes about 100 chronic pain diagnoses on different diagnostic levels. Each of these diagnoses requires specific operationalized diagnostic criteria to be present. The classification comprises more than 200 diagnostic criteria. The aim of the Classification Algorithm for Chronic Pain in ICD-11 (CAL-CP) is to facilitate the use of the classification by guiding users through these diagnostic criteria. The diagnostic criteria were ordered hierarchically and visualized in accordance with the standards defined by the Society for Medical Decision Making Committee on Standardization of Clinical Algorithms. The resulting linear decision tree underwent several rounds of iterative checks and feedback by its developers, as well as other pain experts. A preliminary pilot evaluation was conducted in the context of an ecological implementation field study of the classification itself. The resulting algorithm consists of a linear decision tree, an introduction form, and an appendix. The initial decision trunk can be used as a standalone algorithm in primary care. Each diagnostic criterion is represented in a decision box. The user needs to decide for each criterion whether it is present or not, and then follow the respective yes or no arrows to arrive at the corresponding ICD-11 diagnosis. The results of the pilot evaluation showed good clinical utility of the algorithm. The CAL-CP can contribute to reliable diagnoses by structuring a way through the classification and by increasing adherence to the criteria. Future studies need to evaluate its utility further and analyze its impact on the accuracy of the assigned diagnoses.

Comparing the ICD-11 chronic pain classification with ICD-10: how can the new coding system make chronic pain visible? A study in a tertiary care pain clinic setting

ABSTRACT

Pain is a frequent reason for patients to ask for medical services. However, systematic information about the extent and impact of pain, especially in developing countries, has not been available up to now. We evaluated whether the 11th edition of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) can fill this gap by coding all electronic out-patient medical records of the pain clinic at Siriraj Hospital in Thailand in 2019 (8714 visits), using the ICD-10 and ICD-11 browsers referenced on the WHO websites. The 3 most frequent pain-related codes in ICD-10 were R52.2 "other chronic pain" (29%), M54.5 "low back pain" (18%), and M79.6 "pain in limb" (13%). In ICD-11, the 3 most frequent codes were MG30.31 "chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain associated with structural changes" (28%), MG30.51 "chronic peripheral neuropathic pain" (26%), and MG30.10 "chronic cancer pain" (23%). Thus, using the currently valid ICD-10 system, roughly one-third of patient encounters were coded as "other chronic pain," and the next 2 were specifying the pain region rather than any underlying cause. By contrast, ICD-11 coding of the same patients identified underlying causes (bones and joints, somatosensory nervous system, cancer, or surgery), which provide guidance towards differential patient management. In our pain clinic, most patients suffered from chronic cancer pain, chronic neuropathic pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain, which were poorly defined or nonexistent in the current ICD-10 coding system. Compared with the ICD-10, the ICD-11 provides more detailed diagnostic categories and is more informative for clinical use, research, and resource allocation for pain-related conditions.

Emotional distress: Specifying a neglected part of chronic pain

We argue that in all randomized controlled trials that investigate treatments for chronic pain emotional distress should be reported. In a majority of cases, pain intensity and pain-related disability are measured, yet-despite guidelines to the contrary-pain-related distress is not included. We suggest that the new extension code for chronic pain as incorporated in the ICD-11 will be well suited to fill this gap at minute additional effort for the participants.

The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic neuropathic pain

The upcoming 11th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) offers a unique opportunity to improve the representation of painful disorders. For this purpose, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has convened an interdisciplinary task force of pain specialists. Here, we present the case for a reclassification of nervous system lesions or diseases associated with persistent or recurrent pain for ≥3 months. The new classification lists the most common conditions of peripheral neuropathic pain: trigeminal neuralgia, peripheral nerve injury, painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and painful radiculopathy. Conditions of central neuropathic pain include pain caused by spinal cord or brain injury, poststroke pain, and pain associated with multiple sclerosis. Diseases not explicitly mentioned in the classification are captured in residual categories of ICD-11. Conditions of chronic neuropathic pain are either insufficiently defined or missing in the current version of the ICD, despite their prevalence and clinical importance. We provide the short definitions of diagnostic entities for which we submitted more detailed content models to the WHO. Definitions and content models were established in collaboration with the Classification Committee of the IASP's Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG). Up to 10% of the general population experience neuropathic pain. The majority of these patients do not receive satisfactory relief with existing treatments. A precise classification of chronic neuropathic pain in ICD-11 is necessary to document this public health need and the therapeutic challenges related to chronic neuropathic pain.

Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: the results of ecological coding

BACKGROUND

A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed.

METHODS

Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation.

RESULTS

The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0.

CONCLUSIONS

The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.