Literature DB >> 23742795

Value of quantitative sensory testing in neurological and pain disorders: NeuPSIG consensus.

Miroslav Misha Backonja1, Nadine Attal, Ralf Baron, Didier Bouhassira, Mark Drangholt, Peter J Dyck, Robert R Edwards, Roy Freeman, Richard Gracely, Maija H Haanpaa, Per Hansson, Samar M Hatem, Elena K Krumova, Troels S Jensen, Christoph Maier, Gerard Mick, Andrew S Rice, Roman Rolke, Rolf-Detlef Treede, Jordi Serra, Thomas Toelle, Valeri Tugnoli, David Walk, Mark S Walalce, Mark Ware, David Yarnitsky, Dan Ziegler.   

Abstract

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a psychophysical method used to quantify somatosensory function in response to controlled stimuli in healthy subjects and patients. Although QST shares similarities with the quantitative assessment of hearing or vision, which is extensively used in clinical practice and research, it has not gained a large acceptance among clinicians for many reasons, and in significant part because of the lack of information about standards for performing QST, its potential utility, and interpretation of results. A consensus meeting was convened by the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain (NeuPSIG) to formulate recommendations for conducting QST in clinical practice and research. Research studies have confirmed the utility of QST for the assessment and monitoring of somatosensory deficits, particularly in diabetic and small fiber neuropathies; the assessment of evoked pains (mechanical and thermal allodynia or hyperalgesia); and the diagnosis of sensory neuropathies. Promising applications include the assessment of evoked pains in large-scale clinical trials and the study of conditioned pain modulation. In clinical practice, we recommend the use QST for screening for small and large fiber neuropathies; monitoring of somatosensory deficits; and monitoring of evoked pains, allodynia, and hyperalgesia. QST is not recommended as a stand-alone test for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. For the conduct of QST in healthy subjects and in patients, we recommend use of predefined standardized stimuli and instructions, validated algorithms of testing, and reference values corrected for anatomical site, age, and gender. Interpretation of results should always take into account the clinical context, and patients with language and cognitive difficulties, anxiety, or litigation should not be considered eligible for QST. When appropriate standards, as discussed here, are applied, QST can provide important and unique information about the functional status of somatosensory system, which would be complementary to already existing clinical methods.
Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic pain; Neuropathic pain; Quantitative sensory testing; Recommendations; Sensory neuropathies

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23742795     DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.05.047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  139 in total

1.  Characteristics of the local cutaneous sensory thermoneutral zone.

Authors:  Davide Filingeri; Hui Zhang; Edward A Arens
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Pain: Quantitative sensory testing--a tool for daily practice?

Authors:  Frank Birklein; Claudia Sommer
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 42.937

Review 3.  Can quantitative sensory testing move us closer to mechanism-based pain management?

Authors:  Yenisel Cruz-Almeida; Roger B Fillingim
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 3.750

4.  Improvement of sensory function after sequestrectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective clinical study using quantitative sensory testing.

Authors:  Anja Tschugg; Sara Lener; Sebastian Hartmann; Sabrina Neururer; Matthias Wildauer; Claudius Thomé; Wolfgang N Löscher
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Quantitative sensory testing to evaluate and compare the results after epidural injection and simple discectomy, in patients with radiculopathy secondary to lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Irene Garcia-Saiz; Enrique M San Norberto; Eduardo Tamayo; Enrique Ortega; Cesar Aldecoa
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 2.502

6.  Pain sensitivity subgroups in individuals with spine pain: potential relevance to short-term clinical outcome.

Authors:  Rogelio A Coronado; Joel E Bialosky; Michael E Robinson; Steven Z George
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2014-04-24

7.  Reliability of the nociceptive blink reflex evoked by electrical stimulation of the trigeminal nerve in humans.

Authors:  Yuri Martins Costa; Lene Baad-Hansen; Leonardo Rigoldi Bonjardim; Paulo César Rodrigues Conti; Peter Svensson
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Multimodal Vulvar and Peripheral Sensitivity Among Women With Vulvodynia: A Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Barbara D Reed; Ananda Sen; Sioban D Harlow; Hope K Haefner; Richard H Gracely
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.925

9.  Somatotopic heat pain thresholds and intraepidermal nerve fibers in health.

Authors:  Jenny L Davies; Janean K Engelstad; Linde E Gove; Linda K Linbo; Rickey E Carter; Christopher Lynch; Nathan P Staff; Christopher J Klein; P James B Dyck; David N Herrmann; Peter J Dyck
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 3.217

10.  Multifactorial assessment of measurement errors affecting intraoral quantitative sensory testing reliability.

Authors:  Estephan J Moana-Filho; Aurelio A Alonso; Flavia P Kapos; Vladimir Leon-Salazar; Scott H Durand; James S Hodges; Donald R Nixdorf
Journal:  Scand J Pain       Date:  2017-05-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.