BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain syndromes are typically characterized by high chronification rates as well as long and intensive pain episodes. Early and accurate diagnosis of neuropathic pain is a basic skill of physiotherapists and other medical professionals, may allow for appropriate medical treatment and help to prevent possible consequential damage. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) can be applied as a supplement to conventional neurological bedside testing in the evaluation of neuropathic pain. Over recent decades, QST has come to hold a significant position in the field of pain research. However, despite these developments, the application of QST in clinical practice has lagged behind. OBJECTIVES: What is the value of QST in the study of neuropathic pain? Have the conditions for personal clinical use of the QST been established in physiotherapy practice? Have the pathways for specific implementation of the QST been defined? METHOD: Literature research as part of a Bachelor thesis in Physiotherapy. RESULTS: QST constitutes a valid examination tool that is able to evaluate the complete somatosensory profile. In this way, QST may provide substantial additional benefit in the examination of neuropathic pain patients compared to other conventional testing procedures, especially when it comes to small-fibre neuropathies. These small fibres seem to be particularly affected in asymptomatic patients as well as early phases of neuropathies and cannot be investigated via conventional testing procedures. This makes the use of partial aspects of the QST a proven instrument for physiotherapists and medical staff, which was particularly useful in the decision-making process for neuropathies. DISCUSSION: Nonetheless, regarding the results, there are still several limiting factors that hamper the routine use of QST. Some of these can be resolved by precisely adhering to testing protocols and taking precautions. Other highly relevant issues for clinical practice, such as the immense cost of equipment and the excessive time required for testing, have not been satisfactorily overcome as yet. Less comprehensive testing protocols as well as the innovation of handy and cost-effective testing devices might offer initial approaches to enhance the widespread use of QST. Complementing conventional bedside testing by adding thermal discrimination tests and pain detection threshold tests might prove to be another possibility to integrate the benefit of QST into clinical practice. CONCLUSION: QST makes a significant contribution to the investigation and diagnosis of neuropathies. Physiotherapists are encouraged to implement partial aspects of the QST in a standard examination in order to have a positive effect on both early detection and treatment.
BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain syndromes are typically characterized by high chronification rates as well as long and intensive pain episodes. Early and accurate diagnosis of neuropathic pain is a basic skill of physiotherapists and other medical professionals, may allow for appropriate medical treatment and help to prevent possible consequential damage. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) can be applied as a supplement to conventional neurological bedside testing in the evaluation of neuropathic pain. Over recent decades, QST has come to hold a significant position in the field of pain research. However, despite these developments, the application of QST in clinical practice has lagged behind. OBJECTIVES: What is the value of QST in the study of neuropathic pain? Have the conditions for personal clinical use of the QST been established in physiotherapy practice? Have the pathways for specific implementation of the QST been defined? METHOD: Literature research as part of a Bachelor thesis in Physiotherapy. RESULTS: QST constitutes a valid examination tool that is able to evaluate the complete somatosensory profile. In this way, QST may provide substantial additional benefit in the examination of neuropathic pain patients compared to other conventional testing procedures, especially when it comes to small-fibre neuropathies. These small fibres seem to be particularly affected in asymptomatic patients as well as early phases of neuropathies and cannot be investigated via conventional testing procedures. This makes the use of partial aspects of the QST a proven instrument for physiotherapists and medical staff, which was particularly useful in the decision-making process for neuropathies. DISCUSSION: Nonetheless, regarding the results, there are still several limiting factors that hamper the routine use of QST. Some of these can be resolved by precisely adhering to testing protocols and taking precautions. Other highly relevant issues for clinical practice, such as the immense cost of equipment and the excessive time required for testing, have not been satisfactorily overcome as yet. Less comprehensive testing protocols as well as the innovation of handy and cost-effective testing devices might offer initial approaches to enhance the widespread use of QST. Complementing conventional bedside testing by adding thermal discrimination tests and pain detection threshold tests might prove to be another possibility to integrate the benefit of QST into clinical practice. CONCLUSION: QST makes a significant contribution to the investigation and diagnosis of neuropathies. Physiotherapists are encouraged to implement partial aspects of the QST in a standard examination in order to have a positive effect on both early detection and treatment.
Authors: Miroslav-Misha Backonja; David Walk; Robert R Edwards; Nalini Sehgal; Toby Moeller-Bertram; Ajay Wasan; Gordon Irving; Charles Argoff; Mark Wallace Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: G Cruccu; C Sommer; P Anand; N Attal; R Baron; L Garcia-Larrea; M Haanpaa; T S Jensen; J Serra; R-D Treede Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2010-03-08 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Fawzia Chéliout-Héraut; N Zrek; H Khemliche; O Varnet; D Seret-Begue; M Martinez; R Nizou; F Bour Journal: Joint Bone Spine Date: 2004-11-11 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Miroslav Misha Backonja; 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 Journal: Pain Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Luana Colloca; Taylor Ludman; Didier Bouhassira; Ralf Baron; Anthony H Dickenson; David Yarnitsky; Roy Freeman; Andrea Truini; Nadine Attal; Nanna B Finnerup; Christopher Eccleston; Eija Kalso; David L Bennett; Robert H Dworkin; Srinivasa N Raja Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Daniel S Albrecht; Shihab U Ahmed; Norman W Kettner; Ronald J H Borra; Julien Cohen-Adad; Hao Deng; Timothy T Houle; Arissa Opalacz; Sarah A Roth; Marcos F Vidal Melo; Lucy Chen; Jianren Mao; Jacob M Hooker; Marco L Loggia; Yi Zhang Journal: Pain Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Caroline A Abbott; Rayaz A Malik; Ernest R E van Ross; Jai Kulkarni; Andrew J M Boulton Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Ralf Baron; Christoph Maier; Nadine Attal; Andreas Binder; Didier Bouhassira; Giorgio Cruccu; Nanna B Finnerup; Maija Haanpää; Per Hansson; Philipp Hüllemann; Troels S Jensen; Rainer Freynhagen; Jeffrey D Kennedy; Walter Magerl; Tina Mainka; Maren Reimer; Andrew S C Rice; Märta Segerdahl; Jordi Serra; Sören Sindrup; Claudia Sommer; Thomas Tölle; Jan Vollert; Rolf-Detlef Treede Journal: Pain Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 7.926