The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: applicability in primary care

Smith, Blair H.; Fors, Egil Andreas; Korwisi, Beatrice; Barke, Antonia; Cameron, Paul A.; Colvin, Lesley; Richardson, Cara; Rief, Winfried; Treede, Rolf‐Detlef

doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001360

Cited by 73 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, we have to consider that in 2019, after the completion of this project, a new classification of CP has been developed by the Task Force of the IASP . In this classification, CP is subclassified as chronic primary pain and 6 other subgroups of secondary CP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations in Activities of Daily Living in People With Chronic Pain: Identification of Groups Using Clusters Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Chronic pain (CP) is a major public health problem affecting patients' lives and reducing physical activity. The aim is to establish subgroups of people with chronic pain (PCP) according to limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs), and to identify sociodemographic, pain‐related, and psychosocial variables associated with each subgroup. Methods Nationwide cross‐sectional study on a representative sample of the Spanish adult population. Information on pain characteristics and ADL limitations was collected via telephone survey. A cluster analysis was used to identify subgroups of subjects according to the limitations on ADLs. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze the variables related to each subgroup. Results Out of the 1,957 surveys included in the original study, 325 PCP were identified according to the definition of the International Association for the Study of Pain. More than 50% reported some limitation in ADLs. Three groups of PCP were identified, with low, medium, and high ADL limitation. Older age, widespread and more intense pain, decrease in work activity, and belief that their pain affected the relationship with their friends were associated with higher limitations. Conclusions The identification of the characteristics of people with higher limitations could help guide future prevention and treatment initiatives to minimize the disabling impact of chronic pain on patients' family, work, and social life.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations in Activities of Daily Living in People With Chronic Pain: Identification of Groups Using Clusters Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While pain itself is not a disease, rather a symptom to a multitude of underlying health disorders, chronic pain is regarded by some as a disease in its own right [9]. The implementation of a separate diagnostic code for chronic pain according to the newest International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) underlines the need for better care for patients with chronic pain [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deficits in pain medication in older adults with chronic pain receiving home care: A cross-sectional study in Germany

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To analyze the pattern and appropriateness of pain medications in older adults receiving home care. Methods We performed a prospective cross-sectional study in patients �65 years old having chronic pain and receiving home care in Berlin, Germany. Data on prescribed pain medications were collected using self-reported information, nursing documents, and medication plans during interviews at home. Pain intensity was determined with the numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Pain Assessment In Advanced dementia (PAINAD) scale. The Pain Medication Appropriateness Scale score (S PMAS) was applied to evaluate inappropriateness (i.e. a score �67) of pain medication. Results Overall 322 patients with a mean age of 82.1 ± 7.4 years (71.4% females) were evaluated. The average pain intensity scores during the last 24 hours were 5.3 ± 2.1 and 2.3 ± 2.3 on NRS and PAINAD scale (range 0-10, respectively). Sixty (18.6%) patients did not receive any pain medication. Among the treated patients, dipyrone was the most frequently prescribed analgesic (71.4%), while 50.8% and 19.1% received systemic treatment with opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, respectively. The observed median S PMAS was 47.6 (range 0-100) with 58 (18.0%) of patients achieving appropriate values. Half of the patients were treated with scheduled, while 29.9% were only treated with on-demand medications. Cognitive status had no effect on appropriateness of pain treatment.

show abstract

“…Now, we focus more on nonspecific low back pain, which typically can account for 90% of the patients [5]. The duration of pain persists for at least 3 months and must meet the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD11), criteria for chronic primary pain [6]. Owing to the considerable pain and cost associated with chronic pain, some interventions must be applied to prevent its exacerbation [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Tuina in patients with chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Zhang

Kong

Zhu

et al. 2020

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Low back pain is a common reason for medical care and carries a heavy social burden. The efficacy of Tuina or health care education for low back pain has been evaluated in previous systematic reviews. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of one form of treatment over another. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of Tuina with health care education in the management of low back pain.Methods/design: This study is a randomized controlled trial with parallel-group design including two groups: a Tuina group and a health care education group. A total of 160 eligible participants will be randomly assigned to the groups in a 1:1 ratio. The interventions of both groups will last for 20 min and be carried out twice each week for a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the Oswestry Disability Index. The secondary outcomes include a visual analogue scale and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey. They will be assessed at baseline, at the end of the intervention every month, and during 6 months and 9 months of follow-up by repeated measures analysis of variance. The significance level is 5%. The safety of Tuina and health care education will be evaluated after each treatment session. This study will focus on the value of Tuina and health care education for low back pain and will highlight any differences in the efficacy of the treatments.Discussion: This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of Tuina intervention for low back pain, which could provide reliable evidence for clinical decision making for patients with low back pain.

show abstract

The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: applicability in primary care

Cited by 73 publications

References 33 publications

Limitations in Activities of Daily Living in People With Chronic Pain: Identification of Groups Using Clusters Analysis

Limitations in Activities of Daily Living in People With Chronic Pain: Identification of Groups Using Clusters Analysis

Deficits in pain medication in older adults with chronic pain receiving home care: A cross-sectional study in Germany

Efficacy of Tuina in patients with chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About