(345) Brief psychological screening questions can be useful for ruling out psychological conditions in patients with chronic pain

Does the painDETECT questionnaire identify impaired conditioned pain modulation in people with musculoskeletal pain? - a diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

People with neuropathic-like symptoms had more unfavourable pain features than people with nociceptive. Moreover, deficient conditioned pain modulation is common in people with neuropathic-like symptoms. PainDETECT questionnaire have been used to assess the central sensitisation sign and symptoms. However, whether the painDETECT questionnaire can identify the conditioned pain modulation's impairment is still unknown. Therefore, the current study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the painDETECT questionnaire in detecting the impairment of conditioned pain modulation in people with musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

We conducted a diagnostic accuracy comparing the painDETECT questionnaire (index method) with the cold pressor test, the psychophysical test used to assess the conditioned pain modulation (reference standard). We determined diagnostic accuracy by calculating sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likely hood ratios.

RESULTS

We retrospectively enrolled 308 people with musculoskeletal pain in outpatient departments. Most participants were female (n 20 = 220, 71.4%) and had a mean age of 52.2 (± 15.0) years. One hundred seventy-three (56.1%) participants were classified as nociceptive pain, 69 (22.4%) as unclear, and 66 (21.4%) as neuropathic-like symptoms. According to the cold pressor test, 60 (19.4%) participants presented impairment of conditioned pain modulation. The cutoff point of 12 of the painDETECT questionnaire showed values of diagnostic accuracy below 70% compared to the cold pressor test, except for a negative predictive value [76.9 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 71.7 to 81.5]. The cutoff point 19 showed high specificity (78.6%, 95% CI 73.0 to 83.5), high negative predictive value (80.5%, 95% CI 78.1 to 82.7), and accuracy of 67.5% compared to the cold pressor test.

CONCLUSION

The painDETECT questionnaire seems valuable for ruling out people with musculoskeletal pain and impairment of conditioned pain modulation.

Which psychosocial factors are related to severe pain and functional limitation in patients with low back pain?: Psychosocial factors related to severe low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a global public health issue. Psychosocial factors are linked to LBP. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the relation of psychosocial factors to clinical outcomes of patients with severe LBP.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between specific psychosocial factors with severe pain and functional limitation of patients with LBP.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 472 participants with LBP was conducted. Participants completed self-reported questionnaires, including psychosocial factors, characteristics of pain, and functional limitations. Two multivariable logistic regression models were performed with severe pain intensity (≥ 7 out of 10) and functional limitation (≥ 7 out of 10) (dependent variables) and 15 psychosocial factors (independent variables).

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five (26.5%) participants had severe LBP. Patients with catastrophising symptoms were 2.21 [95%Confidence Interval (CI): 1.30, 3.77] times more likely to have severe pain and 2.72 (95%CI: 1.75, 4.23) times more likely to have severe functional limitation than patients without catastrophising symptoms. Patients with maladaptive beliefs about rest were 2.75 (95%CI: 1.37, 5.52) times more likely to present with severe pain and 1.72 (95%CI: 1.04, 2.83) times more likely to have severe functional limitation. Patients with kinesiophobia were 3.34 (95%CI: 1.36, 8.24) times more likely to present with severe pain, and patients with social isolation were 1.98 (95%CI: 1.25, 3.14) times more likely to have severe functional limitation.

CONCLUSION

Catastrophising, kinesiophobia, maladaptive beliefs about rest, and social isolation are related to unfavourable clinical outcomes of patients with LBP.

Kinesiophobia Severity Categories and Clinically Meaningful Symptom Change in Persons With Achilles Tendinopathy in a Cross-Sectional Study: Implications for Assessment and Willingness to Exercise

Objectives: (1) Validate thresholds for minimal, low, moderate, and high fear of movement on the 11-item Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11), and (2) Establish a patient-driven minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for Achilles tendinopathy (AT) symptoms of pain with heel raises and tendon stiffness.

Methods: Four hundred and forty-two adults with chronic AT responded to an online survey, including psychosocial questionnaires and symptom-related questions (severity and willingness to complete heel raises and hops). Kinesiophobia subgroups (Minimal ≤ 22, Low 23–28, Moderate 29–35, High ≥ 36 scores on the TSK-11), pain MCID subgroups (10-, 20-, 30-, >30-points on a 0- to 100-point scale), and stiffness MCID subgroups (5, 10, 20, >20 min) were described as median [interquartile range] and compared using non-parametric statistics.

Results: Subgroups with higher kinesiophobia reported were less likely to complete three heel raises (Minimal = 93%, Low = 74%, Moderate = 58%, High = 24%). Higher kinesiophobia was associated with higher expected pain (Minimal = 20.0 [9.3–40.0], Low = 43.0 [20.0–60.0], Moderate = 50.0 [24.0–64.0], High = 60.5 [41.3–71.0]) yet not with movement-evoked pain (Minimal = 25.0 [5.0–43.0], Low = 31.0 [18.0–59.0], Moderate = 35.0 [20.0–60.0], High = 43.0 [24.0–65.3]). The most common pain MCID was 10 points (39% of respondents). Half of respondents considered a 5-min (35% of sample) or 10-min (16%) decrease in morning stiffness as clinically meaningful.

Conclusions: Convergent validity of TSK-11 thresholds was supported by association with pain catastrophizing, severity of expected pain with movement, and willingness to complete tendon loading exercises. Most participants indicated that reducing their pain severity to the mild range would be clinically meaningful.

Neural management plus advice to stay active on clinical measures and sciatic neurodynamic for patients with chronic sciatica: Study protocol for a controlled randomised clinical trial

Advice to stay active is the primary management strategy for sciatica. Other conservative treatments such as neural management techniques may also contribute to sciatica recovery, but currently, the effects have not been robustly assessed. Thus, the aim of this study is to compare the effects of adding neural management to advice to stay active versus advice to stay active alone in improving pain intensity and functional limitation. Secondarily, to compare the effects of the experimental intervention in the sciatic neurodynamic, pain modulation, and psychosocial factors. A parallel-group, controlled, examiner-blinded superiority clinical trial randomised at a 1:1 allocation will be conducted in 210 participants with chronic sciatica. Patients will be recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics and community advertisements. The experimental group will receive neural mobilisation techniques and soft tissue mobilisation techniques for 30 minutes per session, 10 weekly sessions, plus advice to stay active on their activities of daily living, information on physical activity, imaging tests, and sciatica for 5 biweekly sessions lasting 25-30 minutes. The control group will receive advice to stay active only. The re-evaluation will be performed out after 5 weeks, 10 weeks, and 26 weeks after randomisation and primary endpoints will be pain intensity and functional limitation at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include neuropathic symptoms, sciatic neurodynamic, pain modulation, and psychosocial factors. Adverse events and patient satisfaction will be assessed. Ethical approval has been granted from an Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee. Trial registration: Trial was prospectively registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (number: RBR-3db643c).

Obstructive sleep apnea is common in patients with high-impact chronic pain - an exploratory study from an interdisciplinary pain center

OBJECTIVES

Sleep disturbances are increasingly recognized as a major part of chronic pain pathology. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common occurrence in patients with chronic pain attending specialized pain clinics, yet its prevalence remains unclear. Using screening tools such as the Berlin and STOP-BANG questionnaires may aid in early identification of OSA and improve clinical care. This study i) examined the frequency of OSA based on objective sleep monitoring in patients with high-impact chronic pain, ii) explored potential differences in self-reported pain and sleep characteristics between patients with and without OSA, and iii) tested the agreement between OSA classification based on objective assessment and two OSA screening questionnaires.

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of 90 patients (71 women and 19 men; mean age: 47.1 ± 11.0 years) referred for interdisciplinary pain treatment, underwent one night of sleep monitoring using portable respiratory polygraphy (RP), and suspected OSA was confirmed with polysomnography (PSG). Self-reported data on clinical pain (severity, pain drawings and health-related quality of life), sleep characteristics (sleep quality insomnia, sleepiness), and risk of OSA (Berlin and STOP-BANG questionnaires) were collected the day before RP assessment.

RESULTS

Forty-six (51.1%) patients were classified with OSA according to RP and verified with PSG. Twenty-eight patients (31.1%) had moderate or severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] >15). Patients with OSA reported lower sleep quality compared with patients without OSA. Scores on pain severity, disability, quality of life, insomnia and sleepiness were comparable between patients with and without OSA. Sensitivity and specificity were 78.6 and 45.2% respectively for the Berlin questionnaire, and 71.4 and 58.1% respectively for the STOP-BANG questionnaire. The agreement for both questionnaires with objective assessment was poor-to-fair. Both questionnaires had acceptable negative predictive values but low positive predictive values reducing the clinical utility to identify patients with low OSA-risk in this sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrates a high prevalence of OSA in patients with high-impact chronic pain referred to specialized pain treatment, however the clinical pain profiles were similar in patients with and without OSA. The Berlin and STOP-BANG questionnaires have poor specificity and low-to-fair agreement with RP/PSG questioning their clinical utility in identifying OSA in this sample.