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

11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases chronic primary pain diagnoses in children and adolescents: representation of pediatric patients in the new classification system

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain is common among children and adolescents; however, the diagnoses in the newly developed 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) chronic pain chapter are based on adult criteria, overlooking pediatric neurodevelopmental differences. The chronic pain diagnoses have demonstrated good clinical applicability in adults, but to date, no field study has examined these diagnoses to the most specific diagnostic level in a pediatric sample. The current study aimed to explore pediatric representation within the ICD-11, with focus on chronic primary pain. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) at a specialized pediatric pain center documented the symptoms of and assigned both ICD-10 and ICD-11 diagnoses to N = 402 patients. Using criteria-based computer algorithms, specific ICD-11 pain diagnoses were allocated for each documented pain location, with residual diagnoses (ie, "unspecified") assigned if criteria were not (fully) met. Within the ICD-11, the algorithms assigned specific pain diagnoses to most patients (73.6%). In ICD-10, HCPs could not specify a diagnosis for 5.2% of patients; the ICD-11 algorithm allocated a residual chronic primary pain diagnosis in 51.2%. Residual categories were especially prevalent among younger children, boys, patients with headaches, and those with lower pain severity. Overall, clinical utility of the ICD-11 was high, although less effective for chronic back pain and headache diagnoses. The latter also exhibited the lowest agreement between HCPs and algorithm. The current study underscores the need for evidence-based improvements to the ICD-11 diagnostic criteria in pediatrics. Developing pediatric coding notes could improve the visibility of patients internationally and improve the likelihood of receiving reimbursement for necessary treatments through accurate coding.

Characteristics of the practice of New Zealand osteopaths who manage patients with chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain management is challenging. Those with chronic pain present to health professionals, including osteopaths.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey of the Osteopathy Research Connect - New Zealand (ORC-NZ), a practice-based research network (PBRN). Demographic, practice, and treatment characteristics of osteopaths who 'often' and 'not often' treat chronic pain patients were collected.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-seven (277) NZ osteopaths responded and just over half (50.7% N = 138) reported 'often' treating chronic pain patients. This group, who have a similar male-to-female ratio, often use a diagnostic screening questionnaire (aOR 3.78), and often treat patients with non-musculoskeletal complaints (aOR 3.12) and tendinopathies (aOR 3.41).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights practice and clinical management characteristics of NZ osteopaths who manage chronic pain patients.

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.

Clinicians diagnosing virtual patients with the classification algorithm for chronic pain in the ICD-11 (CAL-CP) achieve better diagnoses and prefer the algorithm to standard tools: An experimental validation study

BACKGROUND

The ICD-11 classification of chronic pain comprises seven categories, each further subdivided. In total, it contains over 100 diagnoses each based on 5-7 criteria. To increase diagnostic reliability, the Classification Algorithm for Chronic Pain in the ICD-11 (CAL-CP) was developed. The current study aimed to evaluate the CAL-CP regarding the correctness of assigned diagnoses, utility and ease of use.

METHODS

In an international online study, n = 195 clinicians each diagnosed 4 out of 8 fictitious patients. The clinicians interacted via chat with the virtual patients to collect information and view medical histories and examination findings. The patient cases differed in complexity: simple patients had one chronic pain diagnosis; complex cases had two. In a 2 × 2 repeated-measures design with the factors tool (algorithm/standard browser) and diagnostic complexity (simple/complex), clinicians used either the algorithm or the ICD-11 browser for their diagnoses. After each case, clinicians indicated the pain diagnoses and rated the diagnostic process. The correctness of the assigned diagnoses and the ratings of the algorithm's utility and ease of use were analysed.

RESULTS

The use of the algorithm resulted in more correct diagnoses. This was true for chronic primary and secondary pain diagnoses. The clinicians preferred the algorithm over the ICD-11 browser, rating it easier to work with and more useful. Especially novice users benefited from the algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the algorithm increases the correctness of the diagnoses for chronic pain and is well accepted by clinicians. The CAL-CP's use should be considered in routine care and research contexts.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The ICD-11 has come into effect in January 2022. Clinicians and researchers will soon begin using the new classification of chronic pain. To facilitate clinicians training and diagnostic accuracy, a classification algorithm was developed. The paper investigates whether clinicians using the algorithm-as opposed to the generic tools provided by the WHO-reach more correct diagnoses when they diagnose standardized patients and how they rate the comparative utility of the diagnostic instruments available.

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.

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.

Myofascial Temporomandibular Disorders at a Turning Point: Pragmatic or Evidence-Based Management?

Unvalidated theories have been proposed for the etiopathogenesis of masticatory myofascial temporomandibular disorders (mTMD). Modalities such as cone-beam computed tomography/computed tomography and MRI contributes little to the diagnosis of mTMD. Diagnosing mTMD is based on the recognition of "familiar pain" presentation in the masticatory myofascial tissue. This assessment tool contributes little our understanding of the underlying disease process. Thus, management of mTMD is empirical and arbitrary. Exploring emerging technologies to identify biomarkers and objectively assess myofascial tissue physiology in disease and health may be key in moving the diagnosis of mTMD from the pragmatic paradigm to an evidence-based paradigm.

Chronic Pain in the ICD-11: New Diagnoses That Clinical Psychologists Should Know About

Background

In the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), chronic pain was not represented adequately. Pain was left undefined and not recognized as a biopsychosocial phenomenon. Instead, a flawed dualism between psychological and somatic factors was implied. Individual diagnoses were ill-defined and scattered randomly through different chapters. Many patients received diagnoses in remainder categories devoid of meaningful clinical information.

Method

The International Association for the Study of Pain launched a Task Force to improve the diagnoses for the 11th revision of the ICD and this international expert team worked from 2013-2019 in cooperation with the WHO to develop a consensus based on available evidence and to improve the diagnoses.

Results

A new chapter on chronic pain was created with a biopsychosocial definition of pain. Chronic pain was operationalized as pain that persists or recurs longer than three months and subdivided into seven categories: Chronic primary pain and six types of chronic secondary pain. All diagnoses were based on explicit operationalized criteria. Optional extension codes allow coding pain-related parameters and the presence of psychosocial aspects together with each pain diagnosis.

Conclusion

First empirical studies demonstrated the integrity of the categories, the reliability, clinical utility, international applicability and superiority over the ICD-10. To improve reliability and ease of diagnosis, a classification algorithm is available. Clinical psychologists and other clinicians working with people with chronic pain should watch the national implementation strategies and advocate for multimodal and interdisciplinary treatments and adequate reimbursement for all providers involved.

Chronic pain in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases: users' questions answered

ABSTRACT

The upcoming 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) will include a comprehensive classification of chronic pain for the first time, which is based on the biopsychosocial definition of chronic pain. This presents a great opportunity for pain research and clinical practice. The new classification consists of seven main diagnostic categories of chronic pain, which are further divided into increasingly specific levels of diagnoses. Each diagnosis is characterized by clearly defined operationalized criteria. Future users will need to familiarize themselves with the new system and its application. The aim of the present publication is to provide users of the ICD-11 chronic pain classification with answers to frequently asked questions regarding the ICD-11 as a whole, the ICD-11 chronic pain classification, and its application to common pain syndromes. The questions compiled here reached the International Association for the Study of Pain Task Force via different routes (e.g., at conferences, by letter, or during field testing). Furthermore, the authors collected questions posted to the ICD-11 browser and contacted early users of the classification to enquire about their most frequent difficulties when applying the new diagnoses. The authors of the present publication prepared answers to these frequently asked questions. This publication intends to act as a guide for the future users of the new ICD-11 chronic pain classification, hence facilitating its implementation.