Search

There is currently a lack of information regarding neuropathic pain in the very early stages of spinal cord injury (SCI). In the present study, neuropathic pain was assessed using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) for the patient's worst pain within the first 5 days of injury (i.e., hyperacute) and on follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months. Within the hyperacute time frame (i.e., 5 days), at- and below-level neuropathic pain were reported as the worst pain in 23% (n = 18) and 5% (n = 4) of individuals with SCI, respectively. Compared to the neuropathic pain observed in this hyperacute setting, late presenting neuropathic pain was characterized by more intense painful electrical and cold sensations, but less itching sensations. Phenotypic differences between acute and late neuropathic pain support the incorporation of timing into a mechanism-based classification of neuropathic pain after SCI. The diagnosis of acute neuropathic pain after SCI is challenged by the presence of nociceptive and neuropathic pains, with the former potentially masking the latter. This may lead to an underestimation of the incidence of neuropathic pain during the very early, hyperacute time points post-injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01279811) PERSPECTIVE: This article presents distinct pain phenotypes of hyperacute and late presenting neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury and highlights the challenges of pain assessments in the acute phase after injury. This information may be relevant to clinical trial design and broaden our understanding of neuropathic pain mechanisms after spinal cord injury., (Copyright © 2021 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Understanding the mechanism of nerve injury may facilitate managing burn-related nerve pain. This proposed classification, based on cause of nerve injury, was developed to enhance the understanding and management of burn-related nerve pain., Methods: This retrospective investigation included patients aged 15 years or older admitted to the burn center from 2014 to 2019. Burn-related nerve pain was patient-reported and clinically assessed as pain 6 months or more after burn injury, unrelated to preexisting illnesses/medications. The pain classification consisted of direct nerve injury, nerve compression, electrical injury, and nerve dysfunction secondary to systemic injury. The four categories were statistically analyzed between groups, using 52 variables., Results: Of the 1880 consecutive burn patients, 113 developed burn-related nerve pain and were eligible for validation of the classification: direct nerve injury, n = 47; nerve compression, n = 12; electrical injury, n = 7; and nerve dysfunction secondary to systemic injury, n = 47. Factors, significantly increased, that distinguished one category from another were as follows: for direct nerve injury, continuous symptoms (p < 0.001), refractory nerve release response (p < 0.001), nerve repair (p < 0.001), and pruritus (p < 0.001); for nerve compression, Tinel signs (p < 0.001), shooting pain (p < 0.001), numbness (p = 0.003), intermittent symptoms (p < 0.001), increased percentage total body surface area burned (p = 0.019), surgical procedures (p < 0.001), and nerve release (p < 0.001); and for electrical injury, Tinel sign (p < 0.001), intermittent symptoms (p = 0.002), amputations (p = 0.002), fasciotomies (p < 0.001), and nerve release (p < 0.001). Nerve dysfunction secondary to systemic injury was distinguished by significantly less Tinel signs (p < 0.001), shooting pain (p < 0.001), numbness and tingling (p < 0.001), pruritus (p < 0.001), fascial excision (p = 0.004), skin grafts (p < 0.001), amputation (p = 0.004), nerve releases (p < 0.001), and third-degree burns (p = 0.002)., Conclusion: A classification consisting of direct nerve injury, nerve compression, electrical injury, and nerve dysfunction secondary to systemic injury is presented that may guide patient management and research methods, with the goal of improving pain outcomes in burn-related nerve pain., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) remains a major challenge. The aim of the present study is to investigate if the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with visual illusion, following a previously published protocol, has differential effects on pain-related sensory symptoms according to sensory phenotypes profiles. One hundred and thirty SCI patients with NP participated in this open-label trial. Sixty-five patients were given a daily 20-minutes combined treatment of transcranial direct current stimulation and visual illusion for 2 weeks. Sixty-five patients served as a control group. Clinical assessment was performed before and 2 weeks later, by using Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), Brief Pain Inventory, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. There was significant improvement in the combined treatment group according to NPSI, Brief Pain Inventory, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but no changes in the control group. Following a cluster analysis of NPSI items at baseline assessment, 5 subgroups of patients with different pain-related characteristics were identified among the treated group, although differences between clusters were not significant. There was also improvement in mood, sleep quality, and enjoyment of life in the treated group. Despite a reduction of NP with the combined treatment, the analysis of sensory phenotype pain profiles does not provide a predictive value regarding the analgesic results of this combined neuromodulatory treatment. PERSPECTIVE: In this article we confirm the analgesic effect of a combined neuromodulatory therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation associated with visual illusion in patients with NP after an SCI. We have identified 5 clusters of NP with distinct sensory phenotypes, but there was not any specific sensory phenotype cluster that significantly responded to the combined therapy better than the other., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Headache is as old as human history and has been able to report, and the first descriptions were found in Greece and Mesopotamia., Objective: Our objective was to know the date of the first description of ICHD-3 headaches, with their respective author., Methods: We searched for articles that addressed the historical aspects of primary and secondary headaches and painful cranial neuropathies., Results: Twenty-seven different headaches were analyzed according to the occurrence of their first description, with the respective author and country of origin., Conclusions: The knowledge of the first description of ICHD-3 headaches, with their respective author, showed us how and when the different headaches appeared over the years., (© 2020 American Headache Society.)

This review provides an overview of the basic knowledge of drug pain therapy in the palliative situation. Pain is one of the main symptoms in 60 to 90 % of cancer patients. Pain also develops with neurological and other diseases that occur in end-of-life situations. To address this symptom, a holistic strategy is required that encompasses all physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects of the multi-dimensional pain experience ("total pain" concept).Drug treatment for cancer pain has been based on a stepwise approach for many years, starting with non-opioid analgesics, followed by moderate and strong opioids. In contrast, today's pain management is determined more by the actual intensity of this aversive event.The pain assessment should be tailored to identify a nociceptive vs. neuropathic pain component that needs to be challenged by the most appropriate drug therapies. Non-opioid analgesics are ideal substances for relieving nociceptive pain. Antidepressants and anticonvulsants reduce the intensity of new neuropathic pain. Opioids are suitable for all types of pain, but are restricted to a second line choice. Among all opioids are tilidine and tramadol prodrugs, which only relieve pain after activation in the liver. Drug-drug interactions may also block this activation. Rapid release opioids should be used for cancer breakthrough pain. Transdermal opioid applications are recommended for swallowing disorders, but usually not to initiate pain control. An opioid switch can be performed if side effects such as hallucinations for the selected opioid are more pronounced than the pain reduction., Competing Interests: SW, JS, VPP, SH, IN: Keine Interessenkonflikte. AL: Vorträge für Grünenthal, Research agreement mit Roche. FE: Beratertätigkeit oder Vorträge für TEVA, Berlin Chemie, Menarini Group, Grünenthal. RR: Beratertätigkeit oder Vorträge für AOP Orphan, bionorica ethics, Grünenthal, Pfizer, Tilray Deutschland. Konsortialführer des G-BA Innovationsfonds-Projektes APVEL (Förderkennzeichen: 01VSF16007). Ko-Sprecher der Ärztinnen und Ärzte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin und Neuropalliativen Arbeitsgemeinschaft. RR und AL (Ko-Sprecherin) erhalten Forschungsförderung durch das BMBF-Projekt Bio2Treat (Förderkennzeichen: 13GW0334B)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Neuropathic pain is a frequent condition caused by a lesion or disease of the central or peripheral somatosensory nervous system. A frequent cause of peripheral neuropathic pain is diabetic neuropathy. Its complex pathophysiology is not yet fully elucidated, which contributes to underassessment and undertreatment. A mechanism-based treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy is challenging but phenotype-based stratification might be a way to develop individualized therapeutic concepts. Our goal is to review current knowledge of the pathophysiology of peripheral neuropathic pain, particularly painful diabetic neuropathy. We discuss state-of-the-art clinical assessment, validity of diagnostic and screening tools, and recommendations for the management of diabetic neuropathic pain including approaches towards personalized pain management. We also propose a research agenda for translational research including patient stratification for clinical trials and improved preclinical models in relation to current knowledge of underlying mechanisms.

Neuropathic pain is a chronic secondary pain condition, which is a consequence of peripheral or central nervous (somatosensory) system lesions or diseases. It is a devastating condition, which affects around 7% of the general population. Numerous etiological factors contribute to the development of chronic neuropathic pain. It can originate from the peripheral part of the nervous system such as in the case of trigeminal or postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral nerve injury, painful polyneuropathies, or radiculopathies. Central chronic neuropathic pain can develop as a result of spinal cord or brain injury, stroke, or multiple sclerosis. As first-line pharmacological treatment options, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and gabapentinoids are recommended. In trigeminal neuralgia, carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine are the first-choice drugs. In drug-refractory cases, interventional, physical, and psychological therapies are available. This review was structured based on a PubMed search of papers published in the field from 2010 until May 2019., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Délia Szok et al.)

The present study aimed to define the prevalence of pain persisting after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and determine the impact of neuropathic pain. Knee pain after TKA was evaluated in 154 patients (222 knees with osteoarthritis) using a numerical rating scale (NRS) and followed up for a mean of 4.7 years. The patients were classified according to whether they had no or mild pain (NRS ≤ 3), or moderate-to-severe pain (NRS > 3), and then assigned to groups with nociceptive, unclear, or neuropathic pain based on responses to painDETECT questionnaires. Risk factors for these types of pain were determined. The ratio of patients with moderate-to-severe pain was 28% (62 knees). Thirteen patients (21 knees; 9%) experienced unclear pain. Patients with moderate-to-severe or unclear pain had malalignment and lower Knee Society knee scores. In conclusion, a significant number of patients experienced moderate-to-severe and unclear pain after TKA. Moderate-to-severe pain was associated with unclear pain., Competing Interests: None., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Background and aims The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been widely used as a screening tool for the identification of neuropathic pain (NeP) as well as a tool for the characterization of patients' pain profile. In contrast to other NeP screening tools, the PD-Q is the only screening tool with weighted sensory descriptors. It is possible that responses to the PD-Q sensory descriptors are influenced by psychological factors, such as catastrophizing or anxiety, which potentially might contribute to an overall higher score of PD-Q and a false positive identification of NeP. This study aimed to explore (i) the relationship between psychological factors (catastrophizing, anxiety, depression and stress) and the total PD-Q score and (ii) if psychological factors are associated with false positive identifications of NeP on the PD-Q compared to clinically diagnosed NeP. Methods The study was a retrospective review of 1,101 patients attending an outpatient pain centre. Patients were asked to complete the PD-Q, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). For patients who were identified by PD-Q as having NeP, their medical records were reviewed to establish if they had a clinical diagnosis of NeP. Results Accounting for missing data, complete datasets of 652 patients (mean age 51 (SD14) years, range 18-88; 57% females) were available for analysis. Based on PD-Q scoring, NeP was likely present in 285 (44%) patients. Depression, anxiety, stress, catastrophizing, BPI pain and BPI interference were all significantly related to each other (p < 0.0001) and patients displaying these traits were significantly more likely to have a positive PD-Q score (p < 0.0001). For patients classified by PD-Q as having NeP, only 50% of patients had a clinical diagnosis of NeP. Anxiety was significantly associated with a false positive classification of NeP on PD-Q (p = 0.0036). Conclusions Our retrospective study showed that psychological factors including catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, and stress were all influential in producing a higher score on the PD-Q. We observed a high rate of false positive NeP classification which was associated with the presence of anxiety. Implications Clinicians and researchers should be aware that a patient's psychological state may influence the responses to PD-Q and consequently the final PD-Q score and its NeP classification.

To improve patient care and help clinical research, the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the Italian Neurological Society appointed a task force to elaborate a consensus statement on pharmacoresistant neuropathic pain. The task force included 19 experts in neuropathic pain. These experts participated in a Delphi survey consisting of three consecutive rounds of questions and a face-to-face meeting, designed to achieve a consensus definition of pharmacoresistant neuropathic pain. In the three rounds of questions, the participants identified and described the main distinguishing features of pharmacoresistance. In the face-to-face meeting the participants discussed the clinical features determining pharmacoresistance. They finally agreed that neuropathic pain is pharmacoresistant when "the patient does not reach the 50% reduction of pain or an improvement of at least 2 points in the Patient Global Impression of Change, having used all drug classes indicated as first, second, or third line in the most recent and widely agreed international guidelines, for at least 1 month after titration to the highest tolerable dose." Our consensus statement might be useful for identifying eligible patients for invasive treatments, and selecting patients in pharmacological trials, thus improving patient care and helping clinical research.

Peripheral neuropathic pain is among the most prevalent types of neuropathic pain. No comprehensive peripheral neuropathic pain classification system that incorporates contemporary clinical, diagnostic, biological, and psychological information exists. To address this need, this article covers the taxonomy for 4 focal or segmental peripheral neuropathic pain disorders, as part of the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership and the American Pain Society (APS) collaborative to develop a standardized, evidence-based taxonomy initiative: the ACTTION-APS Pain Taxonomy (AAPT). The disorders-postherpetic neuralgia, persistent posttraumatic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain disorder, and trigeminal neuralgia-were selected because of their clinical and clinical research relevance. The multidimensional features of the taxonomy are suitable for clinical trials and can also facilitate hypothesis-driven case-control and cohort epidemiologic studies. PERSPECTIVE: The AAPT peripheral neuropathic pain taxonomy subdivides the peripheral neuropathic pain disorders into those that are generalized and symmetric and those that are focal or segmental and asymmetric. In this article, we cover the focal and segmental disorders: postherpetic neuralgia, persistent posttraumatic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain disorder, and trigeminal neuralgia. The taxonomy is evidence-based and multidimensional, with the following dimensions: 1) core diagnostic criteria; 2) common features; 3) common medical and psychiatric comorbidities; 4) neurobiological, psychosocial, and functional consequences; and 5) putative neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms, risk factors, and protective factors., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Neuropathic pain has been a very active and productive clinical research field over the last 15 years. Studies have concerned multiple aspects of these complex chronic pain syndromes including their very definition, the elaboration of new diagnostic algorithms, the development of specific tools for their screening and measurement and their epidemiology. In this review, we summarize these recent evolutions that have impacted the way these pain syndromes are conceptualized and managed both in daily practice and in the clinical research setting., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

The upcoming 11th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) offers a unique opportunity to improve the representation of painful disorders. For this purpose, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has convened an interdisciplinary task force of pain specialists. Here, we present the case for a reclassification of nervous system lesions or diseases associated with persistent or recurrent pain for ≥3 months. The new classification lists the most common conditions of peripheral neuropathic pain: trigeminal neuralgia, peripheral nerve injury, painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and painful radiculopathy. Conditions of central neuropathic pain include pain caused by spinal cord or brain injury, poststroke pain, and pain associated with multiple sclerosis. Diseases not explicitly mentioned in the classification are captured in residual categories of ICD-11. Conditions of chronic neuropathic pain are either insufficiently defined or missing in the current version of the ICD, despite their prevalence and clinical importance. We provide the short definitions of diagnostic entities for which we submitted more detailed content models to the WHO. Definitions and content models were established in collaboration with the Classification Committee of the IASP's Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG). Up to 10% of the general population experience neuropathic pain. The majority of these patients do not receive satisfactory relief with existing treatments. A precise classification of chronic neuropathic pain in ICD-11 is necessary to document this public health need and the therapeutic challenges related to chronic neuropathic pain.

Purpose of Review: It has been demonstrated that within one pain entity, patients may report highly heterogenic sensory signs and symptoms. Although mechanism might differ fundamentally between those patients, yet the treatment recommendations are uniform throughout all phenotypes. Therefore, the introduction of new stratification tools could pave the way to an individualized pain treatment., Recent Findings: In the past, retrospective stratifications of patients successfully identified responders to certain pharmacological treatments. This indicated predictive validity and reliability of this classification tool in those patient subgroups. Further on, these observations have been confirmed in prospective studies., Summary: This review focusses on recent achievements in neuropathic pain and suggests a promising implementation of an individualized pharmacological therapy in the future.

Objective: To present the characteristics of neuropathic pain in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI)., Methods: We recruited all individuals with chronic SCI referred to the Brain and Spine Injury Research center with a diagnosis of neuropathic pain from April 2013 to September 2015 into this historical cohort study., Results: Forty individuals with chronic SCI-induced neuropathic pain entered this study with a mean age of 43.67+/-13.12 years and a majority of who were male (n=30, 75%). Motor vehicle collision (n=25, 62.5%) and fall (n=7, 17.5%) were the most common causes of SCI in our participants. There were 13 (32.5%) cervical, twenty (50%) thoracic, and 7 (17.5%) lumbosacral SCI. The mean `maximal pain intensity`, `overall pain intensity during the past week`, and `the pain intensity at the initial consultation in pain clinic` measured by numerical rating scale (NRS) in this cohort were 8.71+/-1.73, 6.32+/-1.60, and 6.11+/-2.48, respectively. Burning pain was the most frequently used description of pain reported by our participants. Pain intensity significantly decreased after six months of treatment for all three above categories., Conclusion: This study provides characteristics of neuropathic pain in a group of individuals with chronic SCI. Further large prospective studies are needed to determine the association between lesion level, completeness of injury, and region of pain.

Background: Individuals with chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics (CPNC) describe a different pain experience compared with those with chronic pain without neuropathic characteristics (CP)., Aims: The aim of this study was to describe and compare pain, self-management strategies, and satisfaction with ability to control pain between adults with CPNC versus CP., Participants: Seven hundred and ten community-dwelling adults with chronic pain participated in a cross-sectional survey., Methods: CPNC was defined as a score ≥12 on the Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale. Self-management and pain control was compared between participants with CPNC and CP using frequency, percent, relative risk (RR), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: Participants with CPNC (188/710) reported lower socioeconomic status, poorer general health, and more intense, frequent, and widespread pain. They were more likely to use prescription medications to manage pain (adjusted OR = 2.25, CI = 1.47-3.42). They were more likely to use potentially negative strategies to ease the emotional burden of living with chronic pain, including substance use (adjusted OR = 1.58, CI = 1.06-2.35), denial (adjusted OR = 2.21, CI = 1.49-3.28), and behavioral disengagement (adjusted OR = 1.68, CI = 1.16-2.45), and they were more likely to be completely dissatisfied with their ability to control pain (RR = 1.77, CI = 1.21-2.58)., Conclusions: Individuals with CPNC have distinct pain and self-management experiences compared with those with CP that may lead to negative coping strategies and dissatisfaction with ability to control pain. Therefore, self-management assessment and support should be tailored by pain condition., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Pain Management Nursing. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To create a classifier based on electroencephalography (EEG) to identify spinal cord injured (SCI) participants at risk of developing central neuropathic pain (CNP) by comparing them with patients who had already developed pain and with able bodied controls., Methods: Multichannel EEG was recorded in the relaxed eyes opened and eyes closed states in 10 able bodied participants and 31 subacute SCI participants (11 with CNP, 10 without NP and 10 who later developed pain within 6 months of the EEG recording). Up to nine EEG band power features were classified using linear and non-linear classifiers., Results: Three classifiers (artificial neural networks ANN, support vector machine SVM and linear discriminant analysis LDA) achieved similar average performances, higher than 85% on a full set of features identifying patients at risk of developing pain and achieved comparably high performance classifying between other groups. With only 10 channels, LDA and ANN achieved 86% and 83% accuracy respectively, identifying patients at risk of developing CNP., Conclusion: Transferable learning classifier can detect patients at risk of developing CNP. EEG markers of pain appear before its physical symptoms. Simple and complex classifiers have comparable performance., Significance: Identify patients to receive prophylaxic treatment of CNP., (Copyright © 2018 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

After a thorough review of the history and presentation of a child's facial pain, a targeted head and neck examination is critical to the appropriate diagnosis of facial pain and temporomandibular joint disorders. It is critical to distinguish between the structural (trauma, degenerative disease, and tumor) and nonstructural (neurogenic, myogenic, and psychological) causes of pain, which will allow for incorporation of appropriate strategies of medical, psychological, dental, and surgical therapies., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pain is a common complication in patients following spinal cord injury (SCI), with studies citing up to 80% of patients reporting some form of pain. Neuropathic pain (NP) makes up a substantial percentage of all pain symptoms in patients with SCI and is often complex. Given the high prevalence of NP in patients with SCI, proper identification and treatment is imperative. Indeed, identification of pain subtypes is a vital step toward determining appropriate treatment. A variety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments can be undertaken including antiepileptics, tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, transcranial direct current stimulation, and invasive surgical procedures. Despite all the available treatment options and advances in the field of SCI medicine, providing adequate treatment of NP after SCI continues to be challenging. It is therefore extremely important for clinicians to have a strong foundation in the identification of SCI NP, as well as an understanding of appropriate treatment options. Here, we highlight the definitions and classification tools available for NP identification, and discuss current treatment options. We hope that this will not only provide a better understanding of NP for physicians in various subspecialties, but that it will also help guide future research on this subject., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In order to avoid chronification of pain, appropriate treatment has to be started as early as possible. Inpatient dermatology patients not only suffer from old age and associated multimorbidities but also from characteristic pain due to distinct dermatological diseases. In many cases clinicians have little experience with specific pain treatment but instead have many concerns about how to deal with analgesics. So far chronic pain has been treated according to the pain ladder of the World Health Organization (WHO), which prioritizes the intensity of pain. This article presents an easily implementable concept of pain therapy with special emphasis on the quality of pain. This provides information on whether it is neuropathic or nociceptive pain, which can ultimately be differentially treated. The primary aim is to provide treating dermatologists with a concept to assist in the initiation of an efficient and correct pain therapy. This brief introduction of an individualized pain treatment can reduce the risk of chronification of pain, which can severely impair the quality of life particularly in dermatology patients and also the frequent stigmatization due to the dermatosis.

Study Design: The 2016 International Spinal Cord Society Sir Ludwig Guttmann Lecture., Objectives: The aim of this review is to identify different symptoms and signs of neuropathic pain and spasticity after spinal cord injury (SCI) and to present different methods of assessing them. The objective is to discuss how a careful characterization of different symptoms and signs, and a better translation of preclinical findings may improve our understanding of the complex and entangled mechanisms of neuropathic pain and spasticity., Methods: A MEDLINE search was performed using the following terms: 'pain', 'neuropathic', 'spasticity', 'spasms' and 'spinal cord injury'., Results: This review identified different domains of neuropathic pain and spasticity after SCI and methods to assess them in preclinical and clinical research. Different factors important for pain description include location, onset, pain descriptors and somatosensory function, while muscle tone, spasms, reflexes and clonus are important aspects of spasticity. Similarities and differences between neuropathic pain and spasticity are discussed., Conclusions: Understanding that neuropathic pain and spasticity are multidimensional consequences of SCI, and a careful examination and characterization of the symptoms and signs, are a prerequisite for understanding the relationship between neuropathic pain and spasticity and the intricate underlying mechanisms.

Aim: Individuals experiencing neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury (SCI) present with a variety of pain descriptors in different combinations and at different intensities. These sensory features form distinct patterns, known as sensory symptom profiles., Methods: In the present cross-sectional study, we have used a multivariate statistical method (multiple correspondence analysis) to categorize the sensory symptom profiles of a cohort of 338 patients with at-level or below-level NP after SCI. We also investigated possible associations between positive neuropathic symptoms and features of the neurological lesion., Results: The majority of participants had a combination of pain descriptors, with 59% presenting with 3 or 4 pain subtypes. No significant associations were found between specific pain profiles and etiology or clinical degree of the neurological lesion. Furthermore, similar symptom profiles were seen in patients with at-level and below-level NP. The most frequent pattern observed in patients with cervical SCI consisted predominantly of electric shocks and tingling, without burning, pressure pain, or allodynia., Conclusions: Classification of SCI-NP patients into the 5 groups identified in the present study based on their distinct sensory symptom profiles may allow identification of those most likely to respond to a specific analgesic approach.

Chronic neuropathic pain is a complicated condition after a spinal cord injury (SCI) that often has a lifelong and significant negative impact on life after the injury; therefore, improved pain management is considered a significant and unmet need. Neuropathic pain mechanisms are heterogeneous and the difficulty in determining their individual contribution to specific pain types may contribute to poor treatment outcomes in this population. Thus, identifying human neuropathic pain phenotypes based on pain symptoms, somatosensory changes, or cognitive and psychosocial factors that reflect specific spinal cord or brain mechanisms of neuropathic pain is an important goal. Once a pain phenotype can be reliably replicated, its relationship with biomarkers and clinical treatment outcomes can be analyzed, and thereby facilitate translational research and further the mechanistic understanding of individual differences in the pain experience and in clinical trial outcomes. The present article will discuss clinical aspects of SCI-related neuropathic pain, neuropathic pain phenotypes, pain mechanisms, potential biomarkers and pharmacological interventions, and progress regarding how defining neuropathic pain phenotypes may lead to more targeted treatments for these difficult pain conditions.

Neuropathic pain (NeP) results from injury to, or disease of, the peripheral or central components of the neural systems involved in pain. In contrast to inflammatory pain, NeP can persist after healing from the initial injury has resolved. Antipyretic agents, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, and acetaminophen are ineffective, while specific agents such as gabapentinoids, antidepressants, antiepileptics, and opioids are effective in treating NeP. In this review, we address the definition of NeP, pharmacotherapy for NeP in Japan, pain classification, setting goals for successful NeP medication, and the Japanese algorithm for the pharmacotherapy of NeP with specific prescription guidance.

Neuropathic pain (NP) often occurs during the course of leprosy, and screening tools to differentiate NP from non-NP are often used. However, their performance varies in different settings. The most frequently used scales are the Douleur Neuropathique in 4 questions (DN4) and the Leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS) questionnaires. Thus, we conducted a study to evaluate the agreement between DN4 and LANSS questionnaires to classify NP in 195 leprosy patients attending two reference centers in Sergipe, Brazil. The DN4 and LANSS classified 166 and 110 patients, respectively, as having NP. One hundred and seven (54.8%) were classified as NP by both questionnaires; 59 (30.2%) solely by the DN4 questionnaire and three (1.5%) solely by the LANSS. The agreement of the questionnaires was 66.2% (weak agreement, Kappa = 0.30). Although both questionnaires identified a high proportion of NP, the development of more robust instruments is necessary to ensure the accuracy of diagnosis of leprosy patients classified as having NP., (© The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.)

Advances in diagnostic modalities have improved the understanding of the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain involving head and face. Recent updates in nomenclature of cranial neuralgias and facial pain have rationalized accurate diagnosis. Clear diagnosis and localization of pain generators are paramount, leading to better use of medical and targeted surgical treatments., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In addition to fatigue, pain is the most frequent persistent symptom in cancer survivors. Clear guidelines for both the diagnosis and treatment of pain in cancer survivors are lacking. Classification of pain is important as it may facilitate more specific targeting of treatment. In this paper we present an overview of nociceptive, neuropathic and central sensitization pain following cancer treatment, as well as the rationale, criteria and process for stratifying pain classification., Material and Methods: Recently, a clinical method for classifying any pain as either predominant central sensitization pain, neuropathic or nociceptive pain was developed, based on a large body of research evidence and international expert opinion. We, a team of 15 authors from 13 different centers, four countries and two continents have applied this classification algorithm to the cancer survivor population., Results: The classification of pain following cancer treatment entails two steps: (1) examining the presence of neuropathic pain; and (2) using an algorithm for differentiating predominant nociceptive and central sensitization pain. Step 1 builds on the established criteria for neuropathic pain diagnosis, while Step 2 applies a recently developed clinical method for classifying any pain as either predominant central sensitization pain, neuropathic or nociceptive pain to the cancer survivor population., Conclusion: The classification criteria allow identifying central sensitization pain following cancer treatment. The recognition of central sensitization pain in practice is an important development in the integration of pain neuroscience into the clinic, and one that is relevant for people undergoing and following cancer treatment.

Neuropathic pain is a significant social and economic burden. Back pain, joint pain and headaches affect over 30% of the population. Chronic orofacial pain is a common condition and is difficult to diagnose and manage. This two-part paper aims to provide an overview of novel understanding of neuropathic pain, and furnish clinical teams with an update on the less common and less well-recognized chronic orofacial conditions. Headaches and temporomandibular disorders are the most common conditions and are covered in separate papers (6 and 10). Trigeminal neuralgia, burning mouth, and trigeminal autonomic cephalgias are also covered in separate papers (7, 8 and 9). The remaining conditions: post-traumatic neuropathy (nerve injury); and persistent idiopathic facial pain and atypical odontalgia are discussed in this and the following paper. Clinical Relevance: Neuropathic pain, though rare, is a consequence of dental treatment. Nerve injury in relation to M3M surgery, dental implants, endodontics and local anaesthesia result in 70% of affected patients experiencing chronic neuropathic pain.

Distinction between neuropathic pain and nociceptive pain helps facilitate appropriate management of pain; however, diagnosis of neuropathic pain remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to develop a Korean version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) pain scale and assess its reliability and validity. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original LANSS pain scale into Korean was established according to the published guidelines. The Korean version of the LANSS pain scale was applied to a total of 213 patients who were expertly diagnosed with neuropathic (n = 113) or nociceptive pain (n = 100). The Korean version of the scale had good reliability (Cronbach's α coefficient = 0.815, Guttman split-half coefficient = 0.800). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.928 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.885-0.959 (P < 0.001), suggesting good discriminate value. With a cut-off score ≥ 12, sensitivity was 72.6%, specificity was 98.0%, and the positive and negative predictive values were 98% and 76%, respectively. The Korean version of the LANSS pain scale is a useful, reliable, and valid instrument for screening neuropathic pain from nociceptive pain.

Purpose of Review: Neuropathic pain can affect up to 40% in patients with cancer, which could be related to the tumour, treatment or comorbid diseases. Effective assessment to diagnose neuropathic pain is crucial in order to choose the right treatment., Recent Findings: There is to date no systematic classification system; the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain developed a neuropathic pain grading system intended to be used for both clinical and research purposes, and a recent review describes a step-by-step process for applying the grading system in a clinical setting for cancer pain., Summary: We have combined these recommendations to outline a clinically relevant process to classify neuropathic pain in patients with cancer.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a heterogeneous disorder including patients with dominant nociceptive (e.g., myofascial low back pain), neuropathic (e.g., lumbar radiculopathy), and central sensitization pain. In order to select an effective and preferably also efficient treatment in daily clinical practice, LBP patients should be classified clinically as either predominantly nociceptive, neuropathic, or central sensitization pain., Objective: To explain how clinicians can differentiate between nociceptive, neuropathic, and central sensitization pain in patients with LBP., Study Design: Narrative review and expert opinion, Setting: Universities, university hospitals and private practices, Methods: Recently, a clinical method for the classification of central sensitization pain versus neuropathic and nociceptive pain was developed. It is based on a body of evidence of original research papers and expert opinion of 18 pain experts from 7 different countries. Here we apply this classification algorithm to the LBP population., Results: The first step implies examining the presence of neuropathic low back pain. Next, the differential diagnosis between predominant nociceptive and central sensitization pain is done using a clinical algorithm., Limitations: The classification criteria are substantiated by several original research findings including a Delphi survey, a study of a large group of LBP patients, and validation studies of the Central Sensitization Inventory. Nevertheless, these criteria require validation in clinical settings., Conclusion: The pain classification system for LBP should be an addition to available classification systems and diagnostic procedures for LBP, as it is focussed on pain mechanisms solely.

Objective: Multiple mechanisms are involved in pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA). The painDETECT and Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) questionnaires screen for neuropathic pain and may also identify individuals with musculoskeletal pain who exhibit abnormal central pain processing. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate painDETECT and S-LANSS for classification agreement and fit to the Rasch model, and to explore their relationship to pain severity and pain mechanisms in OA., Methods: A total of 192 patients with knee OA completed questionnaires covering different aspects of pain. Another group of 77 patients with knee OA completed questionnaires and underwent quantitative sensory testing for pressure-pain thresholds (PPTs). Agreement between painDETECT and S-LANSS was evaluated using kappa coefficients and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Rasch analysis of both questionnaires was conducted. Relationships between screening questionnaires and measures of pain severity or PPTs were calculated using correlations., Results: PainDETECT and S-LANSS shared a stronger correlation with each other than with measures of pain severity. ROC curves identified optimal cutoff scores for painDETECT and S-LANSS to maximize agreement, but the kappa coefficient was low (κ = 0.33-0.46). Rasch analysis supported the measurement properties of painDETECT but not those of S-LANSS. Higher painDETECT scores were associated with widespread reductions in PPTs., Conclusion: The data suggest that painDETECT assesses pain quality associated with augmented central pain processing in patients with OA. Although developed as a screening questionnaire, painDETECT may also function as a measure of characteristics that indicate augmented central pain processing. Agreement between painDETECT and S-LANSS for pain classification was low, and it is currently unknown which tool may best predict treatment outcome., (© 2015 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research is published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology.)

Patients with the same disease may suffer from completely different pain symptoms yet receive the same drug treatment. Several studies elucidate neuropathic pain and treatment response in human surrogate pain models. They show promising results toward a patient stratification according to the mechanisms underlying the pain, as reflected in their symptoms. Several promising new drugs produced negative study results in clinical phase III trials. However, retrospective analysis of treatment response based on baseline pain phenotyping could demonstrate positive results for certain subgroups of patients. Thus, a prospective classification of patients according to pain phenotype may play an increasingly important role in personalized treatment of neuropathic pain states. A recent prospective study using stratification based on pain-related sensory abnormalities confirmed the concept of personalized pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain., (© 2014 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Introduction: The International Headache Society (IHS) has published the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-III beta), the most commonly used guide to diagnosing headaches in the world., Aims: To review the recent additions to the guide, to explain the new entities that appear in it and to compare the conditions that have had their criteria further clarified against the criteria in the previous edition., Development: We have recorded a large number of clarifications in the criteria in practically all the headaches and neuralgias in the classification, but the conditions that have undergone the most significant clarifications are chronic migraine, primary headache associated with sexual activity, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks, new daily persistent headache, medication-overuse headache, syndrome of transient headache and neurological deficits with cerebrospinal fluid lymphocytosis. The most notable new entities that have been incorporated are external-compression headache, cold-stimulus headache, nummular headache, headache attributed to aeroplane travel and headache attributed to autonomic dysreflexia. Another point to be highlighted is the case of the new headaches (still not considered entities in their own right) included in the appendix, some of the most noteworthy being epicrania fugax, vestibular migraine and infantile colic., Conclusions: The IHS recommends no longer using the previous classification and changing over to the new classification (ICHD-III beta) in healthcare, teaching and research, in addition to making this new guide as widely known as possible.

Neuropathic pain (NP) in cancer patients lacks standards for diagnosis. This study is aimed at reaching consensus on the application of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) special interest group for neuropathic pain (NeuPSIG) criteria to the diagnosis of NP in cancer patients and on the relevance of patient-reported outcome (PRO) descriptors for the screening of NP in this population. An international group of 42 experts was invited to participate in a consensus process through a modified 2-round Internet-based Delphi survey. Relevant topics investigated were: peculiarities of NP in patients with cancer, IASP NeuPSIG diagnostic criteria adaptation and assessment, and standardized PRO assessment for NP screening. Median consensus scores (MED) and interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated to measure expert consensus after both rounds. Twenty-nine experts answered, and good agreement was found on the statement "the pathophysiology of NP due to cancer can be different from non-cancer NP" (MED=9, IQR=2). Satisfactory consensus was reached for the first 3 NeuPSIG criteria (pain distribution, history, and sensory findings; MEDs⩾8, IQRs⩽3), but not for the fourth one (diagnostic test/imaging; MED=6, IQR=3). Agreement was also reached on clinical examination by soft brush or pin stimulation (MEDs⩾7 and IQRs⩽3) and on the use of PRO descriptors for NP screening (MED=8, IQR=3). Based on the study results, a clinical algorithm for NP diagnostic criteria in cancer patients with pain was proposed. Clinical research on PRO in the screening phase and on the application of the algorithm will be needed to examine their effectiveness in classifying NP in cancer patients., (Copyright © 2014 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The awareness is growing that central sensitization is of prime importance for the assessment and management of chronic pain, but its classification is challenging clinically since no gold standard method of assessment exists., Objectives: Designing the first set of classification criteria for the classification of central sensitization pain., Methods: A body of evidence from original research papers was used by 18 pain experts from 7 different countries to design the first classification criteria for central sensitization pain., Results: It is proposed that the classification of central sensitization pain entails 2 major steps: the exclusion of neuropathic pain and the differential classification of nociceptive versus central sensitization pain. For the former, the International Association for the Study of Pain diagnostic criteria are available for diagnosing or excluding neuropathic pain. For the latter, clinicians are advised to screen their patients for 3 major classification criteria, and use them to complete the classification algorithm for each individual patient with chronic pain. The first and obligatory criterion entails disproportionate pain, implying that the severity of pain and related reported or perceived disability are disproportionate to the nature and extent of injury or pathology (i.e., tissue damage or structural impairments). The 2 remaining criteria are 1) the presence of diffuse pain distribution, allodynia, and hyperalgesia; and 2) hypersensitivity of senses unrelated to the musculoskeletal system (defined as a score of at least 40 on the Central Sensitization Inventory)., Limitations: Although based on direct and indirect research findings, the classification algorithm requires experimental testing in future studies., Conclusion: Clinicians can use the proposed classification algorithm for differentiating neuropathic, nociceptive, and central sensitization pain.

Background: Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of levetiracetam for relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of levetiracetam in chronic neuropathic pain conditions in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6) (via the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 3 July 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing levetiracetam with placebo or another active treatment in adults with chronic neuropathic pain conditions. Studies had to have a minimum of 10 participants per treatments arm., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction; intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison; 8 to 12 weeks duration; parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with at least 200 participants in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving fewer than 200 participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both., Main Results: We included six studies: five small, cross-over studies with 174 participants, and one parallel group study with 170 participants. Participants were treated with levetiracetam (2000 mg to 3000 mg daily) or placebo for between four and 14 weeks. Each study included participants with a different type of neuropathic pain; central pain due to multiple sclerosis, pain following spinal cord injury, painful polyneuropathy, central post-stroke pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and post-mastectomy pain.None of the included studies provided first or second tier evidence. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded because of the small size of the treatment arms, and because studies reported results using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation for withdrawals or using only participants who completed the study according to the protocol, where there were greater than 10% withdrawals. There were insufficient data for a pooled efficacy analysis in particular neuropathic pain conditions, but individual studies did not show any analgesic effect of levetiracetam compared with placebo. We did pool results for any outcome considered substantial pain relief (≥ 50% pain intensity reduction or 'complete' or 'good' responses on the verbal rating scale) for four studies with dichotomous data; response rates across different types of neuropathic pain was similar with levetiracetam (10%) and placebo (12%), with no statistical difference (risk ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to1.7).We pooled data across different conditions for adverse events and withdrawals. Based on very limited data, significantly more participants experienced an adverse event with levetiracetam than with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNH) 8.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 32)). There were significantly more adverse event withdrawals with levetiracetam (NNH 9.7 (6.7 to 18))., Authors' Conclusions: The amount of evidence for levetiracetam in neuropathic pain conditions was very small and potentially biased because of the methods of analysis used in the studies. There was no indication that levetiracetam was effective in reducing neuropathic pain, but it was associated with an increase in participants who experienced adverse events and who withdrew due to adverse events.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a progressive disease of the central nervous system. It is characterized by disseminated foci of demyelination, which are responsible for the diverse clinical picture of MS. Pain is a frequent but underestimated symptom of multiple sclerosis. It is estimated to affect 29-86% of MS patients in various stages of the disease and severely influences rehabilitation and quality of life. The pain experienced by MS patients is generally caused by nervous system damage during the course of the disease process and can usually be characterized as central neuropathic pain (less frequently as peripheral or nociceptive pain). The most frequent symptoms include dysesthetic extremity pain, painful tonic spasms, Lhermitte's sign, trigeminal neuralgia, headaches and low back pain. This paper discusses the probable mechanisms behind the development of pain in MS, the prevalence, classification, types of pain, as well as the most effective treatment methods., (Copyright © 2014 Polish Neurological Society. Published by Elsevier Urban & Partner Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of neuropathic pain according to the new International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) grading system. The secondary objective was to compare the system classification of neuropathic pain with the classification of neuropathic pain according to a patient-administered screening questionnaire., Setting: A Multidisciplinary Pain Center., Subjects: One hundred twenty patients with a variety of chronic pain conditions referred to a multidisciplinary pain center., Methods: Consecutively referred patients filled out the PainDETECT Questionnaire before the first consultation. During the first consultation, patients had pain history taken and bedside examination performed by a pain specialist. Patients were classified according to the score on the PainDETECT Questionnaire and graded according to the IASP grading system about the certainty of neuropathic pain., Results: According to the IASP grading system, 22 patients (18.3%) classified as probable or definite neuropathic pain and 90 patients (75%) as unlikely neuropathic pain. According to the PainDETECT Questionnaire, 55 patients (45%) were classified as likely neuropathic pain and 13 patients (10.8%) as unlikely neuropathic pain. Eleven patients (20%) who were classified as neuropathic pain according to PainDETECT were also classified as probable or definite neuropathic pain by the new IASP grading system., Conclusions: According to the new IASP grading system, less than 20% of the patients referred to a multidisciplinary pain center fulfilled the criteria for neuropathic pain. The classification of neuropathic pain with the IASP system varies from the classification of neuropathic pain with the use of a self-administered screening questionnaire., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Leg pain is associated with back pain in 25-65% of all cases and classified as somatic referred pain or radicular pain. However, distinction between the two may be difficult as different pathomechanisms may cause similar patterns of pain. Therefore a pathomechanism based classification system was proposed, with four distinct hierarchical and mutually exclusive categories: Neuropathic Sensitization (NS) comprising major features of neuropathic pain with sensory sensitization; Denervation (D) arising from significant axonal compromise; Peripheral Nerve Sensitization (PNS) with marked nerve trunk mechanosensitivity; and Musculoskeletal (M) with pain referred from musculoskeletal structures., Objective: To investigate construct validity of the classification system., Methods: Construct validity was investigated by determining the relationship of nerve functioning with subgroups of patients and asymptomatic controls. Thus somatosensory profiles of subgroups of patients with low back related leg pain (LBRLP) and healthy controls were determined by a comprehensive quantitative sensory test (QST) protocol. It was hypothesized that subgroups of patients and healthy controls would show differences in QST profiles relating to underlying pathomechanisms., Results: 77 subjects with LBRLP were recruited and classified in one of the four groups. Additionally, 18 age and gender matched asymptomatic controls were measured. QST revealed signs of pain hypersensitivity in group NS and sensory deficits in group D whereas Groups PNS and M showed no significant differences when compared to the asymptomatic group., Conclusions: These findings support construct validity for two of the categories of the new classification system, however further research is warranted to achieve construct validation of the classification system as a whole.

Purpose: The Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) scale was developed to differentiate pain of predominantly neuropathic or nociceptive origin. The aim of this study was to determine whether the LANSS scale was an appropriate tool to classify pain in a trial of patients with advanced cancer and chronic refractory pain., Methods: Clinician assessment of pain type (neuropathic or nociceptive) was used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of LANSS scores in 112 trial participants. Those classified as "mixed" or of uncertain aetiology were excluded. We undertook several analyses in an attempt to improve the LANSS scale and better diagnose pain type for our specific dataset., Results: There was strong association between the LANSS score and a diagnosis of neuropathic versus nociceptive pain, p < 0.001. When the clinical assessment was compared with the LANSS scale, the overall accuracy was 94 % (79/84). The 5 false negatives and no false positives resulted in a sensitivity of 0.86 (0.70, 0.95), specificity of 1 (0.93, 1), positive predictive value of 1 (0.88, 1) and negative predictive value of 0.91 (0.80, 0.97). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.14 (0, 0.32). The scale had good discriminant and construct validity. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency with Cronbach's α = 0.76, similar to that of the original validation study (α = 0.74). None of the new scales developed was better at differentiating pain type., Conclusions: The LANSS scale predicted well for pain type in a cancer population and is a useful tool for classifying pain in cancer pain trials.

On March 3 2011 the Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, conducted a cross-sectional pain audit. All patients present at the department were invited to complete a questionnaire about their pain experience, and their medical records were reviewed. The results indicated that patients with probable neuropathic pain reported the highest pain severity levels and experienced the greatest burden of their pain. Most patients with neuropathic pain did not receive any secondary analgesics and their general practitioners were infrequently involved in the treatment. The methods used in the present audit can be transferred to other departments for the benefit of the patients.

Neuropathic pain is a chronic condition that is heterogeneous in nature and has different causes. Different from and more burdensome than nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain more severely affects people's quality of life. Understanding the various mechanisms of the onset and progression of neuropathic pain is important in the development of an effective treatment. Research is being done to replace current pharmacological treatments with cellular therapies that will have longer lasting effects. Stem cells present an exciting potential therapy for neuropathic pain. In this review, we describe the neuroprotective effects of stem cells along with special emphasis on the current translational research using stem cells to treat neuropathic pain.

Pain is a subjective condition that cannot be objectively measured; for this reason, self patient-perspective is crucial. Recently, several screening tools to discriminate between nociceptive and neuropathic pain have been developed. We aimed at assessing the consistence and discrepancy of two widely used screening tools, The Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) and the 6-item questionnaire (ID-Pain), by comparing their ability in discriminating neuropathic from nociceptive pain. DN4 and ID-Pain were administered to 392 Italian patients attending 16 outpatient services for peripheral nerve diseases. Based on medical history, clinical findings and diagnostic tools, patients were divided into two groups (neuropathic and nociceptive). Globally, ID-Pain identified neuropathic pain in 60 % of patients (38 % probable, 22 % likely). Interestingly also DN4 diagnosed neuropathic pain in 60 % of cases. A discrepancy was observed in 16 % of cases. DN4 and ID-Pain resulted to be highly interrelated in the identification of neuropathic pain. Sensitivity of DN4 was 82 % and specificity was 81 %, while ID-Pain (considering both probable and likely groups) showed sensitivity 78 % and specificity 74 %. Reliable screening tools for neuropathic pain are well related between them; hence, they are available for researchers and clinicians who may choose the most appropriate for their activity. Since the gold standard for the diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic pain cannot do without a neurological evaluation, perhaps DN4, that includes physician objective measures, may help reducing the percentage of dubious cases. Conversely, when needing a more agile tool (not needing a physician) ID-Pain may be adopted.