Abstract
The International Association for the Study of Pain defines three pain types presumed to involve different mechanisms - nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic. Based on the hypothesis that these pain types should guide matching of patients with treatments, work has been undertaken to identify features to discriminate between them for clinical use. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of these features to discriminate between pain types. Subjective and physical features were evaluated in a cohort of 350 individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain attending a chronic pain management program. Analysis tested the hypothesis that, if the features nominated for each pain type represent 3 different groups, then (i) cluster analysis should identify 3 main clusters of patients, (ii) these clusters should align with the pain type allocated by an experienced clinician, (iii) patients within a cluster should have high expression of the candidate features proposed to assist identification of that pain type. Supervised machine learning interrogated features with the greatest and least importance for discrimination; and probabilistic analysis probed the potential for coexistence of multiple pain types. Results confirmed that data could be best explained by 3 clusters, clusters were characterized by a priori specified features, and agreed with the designation of the experienced clinical with 82% accuracy. Supervised analysis highlighted features that contributed most and least to the classification of pain type and probabilistic analysis reinforced the presence of mixed pain types. These findings support the foundation for further refinement of a clinical tool to discriminate between pain types.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by NHMRC Grants #2027473 and #1194937.
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/IRB of La Trobe University gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Correction of typographical errors. Reduction of length of discussion.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
