We have located links that may give you full text access.
Neuropathic pain after surgery - A clinical validation study and assessment of accuracy measures of the 5-item NeuPPS scale.
Scandinavian Journal of Pain 2024 January 2
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the Neuropathic Pain for Post-Surgical Patients (NeuPPS) scale against clinically verified neuropathic pain (NP) by quantitative sensory testing (QST) as well as evaluation of other psychometric properties. The NeuPPS is a validated 5-item scale designed to evaluate NP in surgical populations.
METHODS: Data from 537 women aged >18 years scheduled for primary breast cancer surgery enrolled in a previous study for assessing risk factors for persistent pain after breast cancer treatment were used. Exclusion criteria were any other breast surgery or relevant comorbidity. A total of 448 eligible questionnaires were available at 6 months and 455 at 12 months. At 12 months, 290 patients completed a clinical examination and QST. NeuPPS and PainDETECT were analyzed against patients with and without clinically verified NP. NP was assessed using a standardized QST protocol including a clinical assessment. Furthermore, the NeuPPS and PainDETECT scores were psychometrically tested with an item response theory method, the Rasch analysis, to assess construct validity. Primary outcomes were the diagnostic accuracy measures for the NeuPPS, and secondary measures were psychometric analyses of the NeuPPS after 6 and 12 months. PainDETECT was also compared to clinically verified NP as well as NeuPPS comparing the stability of the estimates.
RESULTS: Comparing the NeuPPS scores with verified NP using a receiver operating characteristic curve, the NeuPPS had an area under the curve of 0.80. Using a cutoff of 1, the NeuPPS had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 59%, and using a cutoff of 3, the values were 35 and 96%, respectively. Analysis of the PainDETECT indicated that the used cutoffs may be inappropriate in a surgical population.
CONCLUSION: The present study supports the validity of the NeuPPS as a screening tool for NP in a surgical population.
METHODS: Data from 537 women aged >18 years scheduled for primary breast cancer surgery enrolled in a previous study for assessing risk factors for persistent pain after breast cancer treatment were used. Exclusion criteria were any other breast surgery or relevant comorbidity. A total of 448 eligible questionnaires were available at 6 months and 455 at 12 months. At 12 months, 290 patients completed a clinical examination and QST. NeuPPS and PainDETECT were analyzed against patients with and without clinically verified NP. NP was assessed using a standardized QST protocol including a clinical assessment. Furthermore, the NeuPPS and PainDETECT scores were psychometrically tested with an item response theory method, the Rasch analysis, to assess construct validity. Primary outcomes were the diagnostic accuracy measures for the NeuPPS, and secondary measures were psychometric analyses of the NeuPPS after 6 and 12 months. PainDETECT was also compared to clinically verified NP as well as NeuPPS comparing the stability of the estimates.
RESULTS: Comparing the NeuPPS scores with verified NP using a receiver operating characteristic curve, the NeuPPS had an area under the curve of 0.80. Using a cutoff of 1, the NeuPPS had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 59%, and using a cutoff of 3, the values were 35 and 96%, respectively. Analysis of the PainDETECT indicated that the used cutoffs may be inappropriate in a surgical population.
CONCLUSION: The present study supports the validity of the NeuPPS as a screening tool for NP in a surgical population.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Review article: Recent advances in ascites and acute kidney injury management in cirrhosis.Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2024 March 26
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app