Cargando…
Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study
INTRODUCTION: Central sensitization (CS) may explain the persistence of symptoms in patients with chronic pain and persistent physical symptoms (PPS). There is a need for assessing CS in the consultation room. In a recently published systematic review, we made an inventory of tests for CS. In this s...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8527602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34666688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01539-0 |
_version_ | 1784586100028735488 |
---|---|
author | den Boer, Carine Terluin, Berend van der Wouden, Johannes C. Blankenstein, Annette H. van der Horst, Henriëtte E. |
author_facet | den Boer, Carine Terluin, Berend van der Wouden, Johannes C. Blankenstein, Annette H. van der Horst, Henriëtte E. |
author_sort | den Boer, Carine |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Central sensitization (CS) may explain the persistence of symptoms in patients with chronic pain and persistent physical symptoms (PPS). There is a need for assessing CS in the consultation room. In a recently published systematic review, we made an inventory of tests for CS. In this study we aimed to assess which tests might have added value, might be feasible and thus be suitable for use in general practice. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi study consisting of two e-mail rounds to reach consensus among experts in chronic pain and PPS. We invited 40 national and international experts on chronic pain and PPS, 27 agreed to participate. We selected 12 tests from our systematic review and additional searches; panellists added three more tests in the first round. We asked the panellists, both clinicians and researchers, to rate these 15 tests on technical feasibility for use in general practice, added value and to provide an overall judgement for suitability in general practice. RESULTS: In two rounds the panellists reached consensus on 14 of the 15 tests: three were included, eleven excluded. Included were the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and monofilaments. No consensus was reached on the Sensory Hypersensitivity Scale. CONCLUSION: In a Delphi study among an international panel of experts, three tests for measuring CS were considered to be suitable for use in general practice: the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and monofilaments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01539-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8527602 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85276022021-10-25 Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study den Boer, Carine Terluin, Berend van der Wouden, Johannes C. Blankenstein, Annette H. van der Horst, Henriëtte E. BMC Fam Pract Research INTRODUCTION: Central sensitization (CS) may explain the persistence of symptoms in patients with chronic pain and persistent physical symptoms (PPS). There is a need for assessing CS in the consultation room. In a recently published systematic review, we made an inventory of tests for CS. In this study we aimed to assess which tests might have added value, might be feasible and thus be suitable for use in general practice. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi study consisting of two e-mail rounds to reach consensus among experts in chronic pain and PPS. We invited 40 national and international experts on chronic pain and PPS, 27 agreed to participate. We selected 12 tests from our systematic review and additional searches; panellists added three more tests in the first round. We asked the panellists, both clinicians and researchers, to rate these 15 tests on technical feasibility for use in general practice, added value and to provide an overall judgement for suitability in general practice. RESULTS: In two rounds the panellists reached consensus on 14 of the 15 tests: three were included, eleven excluded. Included were the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and monofilaments. No consensus was reached on the Sensory Hypersensitivity Scale. CONCLUSION: In a Delphi study among an international panel of experts, three tests for measuring CS were considered to be suitable for use in general practice: the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and monofilaments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01539-0. BioMed Central 2021-10-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8527602/ /pubmed/34666688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01539-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research den Boer, Carine Terluin, Berend van der Wouden, Johannes C. Blankenstein, Annette H. van der Horst, Henriëtte E. Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study |
title | Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study |
title_full | Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study |
title_fullStr | Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study |
title_full_unstemmed | Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study |
title_short | Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study |
title_sort | tests for central sensitization in general practice: a delphi study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8527602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34666688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01539-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT denboercarine testsforcentralsensitizationingeneralpracticeadelphistudy AT terluinberend testsforcentralsensitizationingeneralpracticeadelphistudy AT vanderwoudenjohannesc testsforcentralsensitizationingeneralpracticeadelphistudy AT blankensteinannetteh testsforcentralsensitizationingeneralpracticeadelphistudy AT vanderhorsthenriettee testsforcentralsensitizationingeneralpracticeadelphistudy |