Acute and chronic neuropathic pain in the hospital setting: Use of screening tools
Clinical Journal of Pain, ISSN: 0749-8047, Vol: 29, Issue: 6, Page: 507-511
2013
- 17Citations
- 55Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations17
- Citation Indexes16
- CrossRef16
- 14
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures55
- Readers55
- 55
Article Description
Objectives: Chronic neuropathic pain (NP) is a well-known phenomenon, whereas acute neuropathic pain is increasingly recognized. Both are potentially difficult for a nonspecialist to diagnose. The Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) and DN4 scales are screening tools developed to identify chronic NP. We aimed to evaluate and compare their performance in 2 different populations: outpatients with chronic pain, and inpatients with acute postoperative pain. Methods: Consecutive outpatients attending the Lothian Chronic Pain Service completed the LANSS and DN4. Experienced clinicians independently classified each patient's pain as NP, mixed, or non-NP. In the acute setting, patients undergoing elective general or orthopedic surgery were assessed postoperatively using the LANSS and DN4. Results: Of 67 patients with chronic pain, consultants identified 17 (25.4%) patients with NP, 17 (25.4%) with mixed pain, and 33 (49%) with non-NP. The LANSS performed better than the DN4 in identification (positive predictive value 0.87 compared with 0.57). In the acute setting, the LANSS identified 5 of 165 patients (3%) as experiencing NP and the DN4 identified 7 of 165 (4.2%). Discussion: Although the LANSS performed better than the DN4 in the chronic population, both tools performed less well than published literature, demonstrating the importance of evaluating screening tools in the proposed patient population. There may be potential for using these questionnaires to identify acute NP. © 2013 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84877713704&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ajp.0b013e318260c16f; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23247003; https://journals.lww.com/00002508-201306000-00006; http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00002508-201306000-00006; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e318260c16f; https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e318260c16f; https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00002508-201306000-00006
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know