The nationwide multicenter trials of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) aim to characterize the somatosensory phenotype of patients with neuropathic pain. For this purpose, we have implemented a standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol giving a complete profile for one region within 30 min. To judge plus or minus signs in patients we have now established age- and gender-matched absolute and relative QST reference values from 180 healthy subjects, assessed bilaterally over face, hand and foot. We determined thermal detection and pain thresholds including a test for paradoxical heat sensations, mechanical detection thresholds to von Frey filaments and a 64 Hz tuning fork, mechanical pain thresholds to pinprick stimuli and blunt pressure, stimulus/response-functions for pinprick and dynamic mechanical allodynia, and pain summation (wind-up ratio). QST parameters were region specific and age dependent. Pain thresholds were significantly lower in women than men. Detection thresholds were generally independent of gender. Reference data were normalized to the specific group means and variances (region, age, gender) by calculating z-scores. Due to confidence limits close to the respective limits of the possible data range, heat hypoalgesia, cold hypoalgesia, and mechanical hyperesthesia can hardly be diagnosed. Nevertheless, these parameters can be used for group comparisons. Sensitivity is enhanced by side-to-side comparisons by a factor ranging from 1.1 to 2.5. Relative comparisons across body regions do not offer advantages over absolute reference values. Application of this standardized QST protocol in patients and human surrogate models will allow to infer underlying mechanisms from somatosensory phenotypes.

Neuropathic pain is accompanied by both positive and negative sensory signs. To explore the spectrum of sensory abnormalities, 1236 patients with a clinical diagnosis of neuropathic pain were assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST) following the protocol of DFNS (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain), using both thermal and mechanical nociceptive as well as non-nociceptive stimuli. Data distributions showed a systematic shift to hyperalgesia for nociceptive, and to hypoesthesia for non-nociceptive parameters. Across all parameters, 92% of the patients presented at least one abnormality. Thermosensory or mechanical hypoesthesia (up to 41%) was more frequent than hypoalgesia (up to 18% for mechanical stimuli). Mechanical hyperalgesias occurred more often (blunt pressure: 36%, pinprick: 29%) than thermal hyperalgesias (cold: 19%, heat: 24%), dynamic mechanical allodynia (20%), paradoxical heat sensations (18%) or enhanced wind-up (13%). Hyperesthesia was less than 5%. Every single sensory abnormality occurred in each neurological syndrome, but with different frequencies: thermal and mechanical hyperalgesias were most frequent in complex regional pain syndrome and peripheral nerve injury, allodynia in postherpetic neuralgia. In postherpetic neuralgia and in central pain, subgroups showed either mechanical hyperalgesia or mechanical hypoalgesia. The most frequent combinations of gain and loss were mixed thermal/mechanical loss without hyperalgesia (central pain and polyneuropathy), mixed loss with mechanical hyperalgesia in peripheral neuropathies, mechanical hyperalgesia without any loss in trigeminal neuralgia. Thus, somatosensory profiles with different combinations of loss and gain are shared across the major neuropathic pain syndromes. The characterization of underlying mechanisms will be needed to make a mechanism-based classification feasible.