ASSESSMENT OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS USED TO IDENTIFY PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC NEUROPATHIC PAIN- A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Author(s)

Lopez-Cabra C1, Reyes JM2, Prieto VA2
1Universidad del Rosario, Bogota, Colombia, 2Pfizer SAS, Bogota, Colombia

OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools used to detect chronic neuropathic pain (NeP) in patients with chronic diseases compared with the reference standard of clinical judgment. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and evaluate the discriminant characteristics of screening questionnaires chronic NeP in patients with a comparative clinical assessment. The search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and LILACS databases. Cohort studies, diagnostic tests accuracy studies, cross-sectional studies and randomized clinical trials (RCT) were included.  Study selection and data extraction were accomplished by two independent researchers. A qualitative analysis was included comparing the sensitivity, specificity and receiver operator characteristics (ROC) across the various screening tools. Quantitative analyses were not conducted due to the high heterogeneity of the published studies. RESULTS: We included 23 studies: 16 diagnostic, 5 cohort, 1 cross-sectional and 1 RCT.  Seven questionnaires were identified: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS), ID-Pain, painDETECT, the self-report version of LANSS (S-LANSS), Standardized Evaluation of Pain (SteP) and the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). The screening tools most frequently researched regarding validation and reliability across different languages were DN4 and LANSS. The DN4 reported higher sensitivity than LANSS; 61%-100% vs. 22% to 89%, respectively. Specificity was similar between the DN4 and LANSS; 73%-97% vs. 74%-100%, respectively. The ROC of DN4 was higher for the LANSS compared with DN4; 0.89 (standard deviation or SD 0.71 to 0.99) vs. 0.99 (0.73 to 0.96), respectively. Overall, the DN4 reported better diagnostic accuracy compared to the other six screening tools. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review of the literature identified the DN4 as the most studied screening tool with robust discriminant characteristics to detect chronic NeP.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2016-05, ISPOR 2016, Washington DC, USA

Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May 2016)

Code

PMD63

Topic

Epidemiology & Public Health

Topic Subcategory

Disease Classification & Coding

Disease

Systemic Disorders/Conditions

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×