Pain following blood donation: a questionnaire study of long‐term morbidity (<scp>LTM</scp>) in blood donors

Sørensen, B.; Jørgensen, Jan; Jensen, Troels Staehelin; Finnerup, Nanna Brix

doi:10.1111/vox.12245

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In future, it is important to generate probabilistic maps of innervation territories and to develop methods for the assessment of sensory function in joints and muscles and visceral tissues. Identification of appropriate control areas for specific conditions, establishment of inter- and intra-examiner reliability, and assessment of the use of patient self-examination 14 , 27 are also needed. (5) The possible presence of neuropathic pain in conditions where lesions or diseases of the somatosensory nervous system occur secondary to an inflammatory condition is not clear.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuropathic pain: an updated grading system for research and clinical practice

Finnerup

Haroutounian

Kamerman

et al. 2016

Pain

945

695

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The redefinition of neuropathic pain as “pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system,” which was suggested by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) in 2008, has been widely accepted. In contrast, the proposed grading system of possible, probable, and definite neuropathic pain from 2008 has been used to a lesser extent. Here, we report a citation analysis of the original NeuPSIG grading paper of 2008, followed by an analysis of its use by an expert panel and recommendations for an improved grading system. As of February, 2015, 608 eligible articles in Scopus cited the paper, 414 of which cited the neuropathic pain definition. Of 220 clinical studies citing the paper, 56 had used the grading system. The percentage using the grading system increased from 5% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Obstacles to a wider use of the grading system were identified, including (1) questions about the relative significance of confirmatory tests, (2) the role of screening tools, and (3) uncertainties about what is considered a neuroanatomically plausible pain distribution. Here, we present a revised grading system with an adjusted order, better reflecting clinical practice, improvements in the specifications, and a word of caution that even the “definite” level of neuropathic pain does not always indicate causality. In addition, we add a table illustrating the area of pain and sensory abnormalities in common neuropathic pain conditions and propose areas for further research.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%