Back

Application of the IASP grading system for 'nociplastic pain' in chronic pain conditions: A field study

Schmidt, H.; Drusko, A.; Renz, M.; Schloemp, L.; Tost, H.; Tesarz, J.; Schuh-Hofer, S.; Meyer-Lindenberg, A.; Treede, R.-D.

2022-12-06 pain medicine
10.1101/2022.12.06.22283114 medRxiv
Show abstract

The concept nociplastic pain has been developed for patients in whom clinical and psychophysical findings suggest a predominant central sensitization type of pain that is not fully explained as nociceptive or neuropathic. Here we tested, how well the recently published grading system differentiates between chronic primary pain or chronic secondary pain conditions. We recruited patients with Fibromyalgia (FMS, 41), Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS, 11), Osteoarthritis (OA, 21) or Peripheral Nerve Injury (PNI, 8). We used clinical history, pain drawings, Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) and questionnaires to classify patients pains as possibly or probably nociplastic in nature. All FMS and CRPS patients exhibited widespread or regional pain that was not explainable by nociceptive nor neuropathic mechanisms. Widespread pain in 12 OA patients was fully explained as nociceptive and regional pain in 4 PNI patients as neuropathic in all but one in each group. QST provided evidence for hypersensitivity in 9/11 CRPS patients but only 27/41 FMS patients (possible nociplastic pain). 82% of the CRPS patients but only 54% of FMS patients reported a history of hypersensitivity and mental comorbidities (probable nociplastic pain). We suggest that clinical examination of hypersensitivity should be done in more than one region and that adding a high tender point count as evidence for hypersensitivity phenomena may be useful. Further we suggest to switch the sequence of steps so that self-reported hypersensitivity and comorbidities come before clinical examination of hypersensitivity; Since the nociplastic pain concept calls for brainstem and cortical plasticity we discuss in detail potential measurement strategies.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Pain Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.1%
2
Pain
78 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.1%
3
The Journal of Pain
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
European Journal of Pain
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.7%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.7%
6
The Journal of Headache and Pain
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
7
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
8
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
9
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.6%
10
Neurobiology of Pain
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
11
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.4%
12
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.5%
13
British Journal of Anaesthesia
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
14
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
15
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.3%
16
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
17
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
18
Brain Research Bulletin
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
19
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
20
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
21
Experimental Brain Research
53 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
22
Brain
168 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
23
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%