| Title |
The added value of bedside examination and screening QST to improve neuropathic pain identification in patients with chronic pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s154698 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hans Timmerman, Oliver HG Wilder-Smith, Monique AH Steegers, Kris CP Vissers, André P Wolff |
| Abstract |
The assessment of a neuropathic pain component (NePC) to establish the neurological criteria required to comply with the clinical description is based on history taking, clinical examination, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) and includes bedside examination (BSE). The objective of this study was to assess the potential association between the clinically diagnosed presence or absence of an NePC, BSE, and the Nijmegen-Aalborg screening QST (NASQ) paradigm in patients with chronic (≥3 months) low back and leg pain or with neck shoulder arm pain or in patients with chronic pain due to suspected peripheral nerve damage. A total of 291 patients participated in the study. Pain (absence or presence of neuro-pathic pain) was assessed independently by two physicians and compared with BSE (measurements of touch [finger, brush], heat, cold, pricking [safety pin, von Frey hair], and vibration). The NASQ paradigm (pressure algometry, electrical pain thresholds, and conditioned pain modulation) was assessed in 58 patients to generate new insights. BSE revealed a low association of differences between patients with either absent or present NePC: heat, cold, and pricking sensations with a von Frey hair were statistically significantly less common in patients with present NePC. NASQ did not reveal any differences between patients with and without an NePC. Currently, a standardized BSE appears to be more useful than the NASQ paradigm when distinguishing between patients with and without an NePC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 23 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,012,809
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,108
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,284
of 328,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#37
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.