Abstract
The concept ‘nociplastic pain’ has been developed for patients in whom clinical and psychophysical findings suggest a predominant central sensitization type of pain that is not fully explained as nociceptive or neuropathic. Here we tested, how well the recently published grading system differentiates between chronic primary pain or chronic secondary pain conditions. We recruited patients with Fibromyalgia (FMS, 41), Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS, 11), Osteoarthritis (OA, 21) or Peripheral Nerve Injury (PNI, 8). We used clinical history, pain drawings, Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) and questionnaires to classify patients’ pains as possibly or probably ‘nociplastic’ in nature.
All FMS and CRPS patients exhibited widespread or regional pain that was not explainable by nociceptive nor neuropathic mechanisms. Widespread pain in 12 OA patients was fully explained as nociceptive and regional pain in 4 PNI patients as neuropathic in all but one in each group. QST provided evidence for hypersensitivity in 9/11 CRPS patients but only 27/41 FMS patients (possible ‘nociplastic pain’). 82% of the CRPS patients but only 54% of FMS patients reported a history of hypersensitivity and mental comorbidities (probable ‘nociplastic pain’). We suggest that clinical examination of hypersensitivity should be done in more than one region and that adding a high tender point count as evidence for hypersensitivity phenomena may be useful. Further we suggest to switch the sequence of steps so that self-reported hypersensitivity and comorbidities come before clinical examination of hypersensitivity; Since the ‘nociplastic pain’ concept calls for brainstem and cortical plasticity we discuss in detail potential measurement strategies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the German Research Council (DFG) in collaborative research center grant SFB 1158, subprojects B04, B09 and S01.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee (II) of Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University gave ethical approval for this work (AZ 2018-663N-MA)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Table 3 added
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
