Assessment of the concordance between DN4 scores performed by the patient (self-assessment) or by the physician (hetero-assessment) to detect subacute neuropathic postoperative pain

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY European Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-01-19 DOI:10.1002/ejp.2241
Frédéric Adam, Gilles Chatellier, Pascal Alfonsi
{"title":"Assessment of the concordance between DN4 scores performed by the patient (self-assessment) or by the physician (hetero-assessment) to detect subacute neuropathic postoperative pain","authors":"Frédéric Adam,&nbsp;Gilles Chatellier,&nbsp;Pascal Alfonsi","doi":"10.1002/ejp.2241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Centres dedicated to chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) have been developed, but delays for accessing to it are generally long. Teleconsultation might be a means to facilitate access to care by allowing an initial triage. CPSPs are neuropathic pain in around half of the cases and their diagnosis is mainly based on the score obtained from validated questionnaires. Among them, those requiring a neurological examination (i.e. the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions [DN4]) have a better sensitivity and specificity, and should be preferred. However, effectiveness of a remote neurological examination remains to be established. The aim of this observational study is to check during a face-to-face consultation if, after a short training, a naïve patient is capable to self-assess the clinical signs of neuropathic sensations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty patients with suspected neuropathic pain were seen in a face-to-face postoperative pain consultation. Before examination, the patient was instructed to fill the DN4 questionnaire, including the neurological examination. Once explanations were given and checked, the patient was left and completed it alone. Then, the pain physician performed the DN4 questionnaire. Inter-rater reliability between patient and pain physician was assessed for each item and for DN4 score with the Kappa coefficient.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For each item of the DN4 questionnaire, Kappa coefficients were between 0.74 and 1, and could be considered as excellent. For DN4 ≥ 4, the Kappa coefficient was 0.86.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our results suggest that after a short training, a naïve patient is capable of recognizing and diagnosing symptoms of neuropathic pain.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Significance</h3>\n \n <p>Our results suggest that self-assessment, carried out after brief training and using a simple tool, provides results comparable to those obtained by a specialist physician to diagnose symptoms of neuropathic pain. If the results of the current study are confirmed on a larger scale, self-assessment will help improve access to specialized chronic pain care by better orienting patients and opening up access to teleconsultations.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12021,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejp.2241","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Centres dedicated to chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) have been developed, but delays for accessing to it are generally long. Teleconsultation might be a means to facilitate access to care by allowing an initial triage. CPSPs are neuropathic pain in around half of the cases and their diagnosis is mainly based on the score obtained from validated questionnaires. Among them, those requiring a neurological examination (i.e. the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions [DN4]) have a better sensitivity and specificity, and should be preferred. However, effectiveness of a remote neurological examination remains to be established. The aim of this observational study is to check during a face-to-face consultation if, after a short training, a naïve patient is capable to self-assess the clinical signs of neuropathic sensations.

Methods

Thirty patients with suspected neuropathic pain were seen in a face-to-face postoperative pain consultation. Before examination, the patient was instructed to fill the DN4 questionnaire, including the neurological examination. Once explanations were given and checked, the patient was left and completed it alone. Then, the pain physician performed the DN4 questionnaire. Inter-rater reliability between patient and pain physician was assessed for each item and for DN4 score with the Kappa coefficient.

Results

For each item of the DN4 questionnaire, Kappa coefficients were between 0.74 and 1, and could be considered as excellent. For DN4 ≥ 4, the Kappa coefficient was 0.86.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that after a short training, a naïve patient is capable of recognizing and diagnosing symptoms of neuropathic pain.

Significance

Our results suggest that self-assessment, carried out after brief training and using a simple tool, provides results comparable to those obtained by a specialist physician to diagnose symptoms of neuropathic pain. If the results of the current study are confirmed on a larger scale, self-assessment will help improve access to specialized chronic pain care by better orienting patients and opening up access to teleconsultations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估由患者(自评)或医生(异评)进行的 DN4 评分之间的一致性,以检测亚急性神经病理性术后疼痛。
背景:专门针对慢性手术后疼痛(CPSP)的中心已经建立,但就诊时间普遍较长。远程会诊可通过初步分诊,为患者提供就医便利。约有一半的 CPSP 属于神经病理性疼痛,其诊断主要依据有效问卷的得分。其中,需要进行神经学检查的问卷(即神经病理性四问(Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions [DN4])具有较高的灵敏度和特异性,应作为首选。然而,远程神经检查的有效性仍有待确定。本观察性研究的目的是在面对面问诊时,检查经过短期培训后的新患者是否能够自我评估神经病理性感觉的临床表现:方法:30 名疑似神经病理性疼痛患者接受了术后疼痛面对面咨询。检查前,指导患者填写 DN4 问卷,包括神经系统检查。在进行解释和核对后,让患者独自填写。然后,疼痛科医生进行 DN4 问卷调查。用 Kappa 系数评估了患者和疼痛科医生之间对每个项目和 DN4 评分的互评可靠性:对于 DN4 问卷的每个项目,Kappa 系数都在 0.74 和 1 之间,可视为极佳。对于 DN4 ≥ 4,Kappa 系数为 0.86:我们的结果表明,经过短期培训后,新患者能够识别和诊断神经病理性疼痛的症状:我们的研究结果表明,经过短期培训并使用简单的工具进行自我评估,其结果可与专科医生诊断神经病理性疼痛症状的结果相媲美。如果本次研究的结果在更大范围内得到证实,自我评估将有助于更好地引导患者,并为他们提供远程会诊的机会,从而改善慢性疼痛专科护理的可及性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Pain
European Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Pain (EJP) publishes clinical and basic science research papers relevant to all aspects of pain and its management, including specialties such as anaesthesia, dentistry, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopaedics, palliative care, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation; socio-economic aspects of pain are also covered. Regular sections in the journal are as follows: • Editorials and Commentaries • Position Papers and Guidelines • Reviews • Original Articles • Letters • Bookshelf The journal particularly welcomes clinical trials, which are published on an occasional basis. Research articles are published under the following subject headings: • Neurobiology • Neurology • Experimental Pharmacology • Clinical Pharmacology • Psychology • Behavioural Therapy • Epidemiology • Cancer Pain • Acute Pain • Clinical Trials.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Harnessing the therapeutic effects of nature for chronic Pain: A role for immersive virtual reality? A narrative review Adolescent predictors of substance use in young adulthood among individuals with childhood-onset chronic pain: A follow-up study. Preoperative measures of pain at rest and movement-evoked pain in knee arthroplasty: Associations with pain and function outcome trajectories from a prospective multicentre longitudinal cohort study. Authors' reply to the comment by Kallewaard, Duarte, Eldabe and Thomson.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1