Diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination and screening tool data to identify neuropathic pain in low back related leg pain: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Diagnosis
Low back related leg pain
Neuropathic pain
Systematic review
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Aug 2020
10 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
08
03
2020
accepted:
17
06
2020
entrez:
12
8
2020
pubmed:
12
8
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is a challenge for healthcare providers to manage. Neuropathic pain (NP) is highly prevalent in presentations of LBLP and an accurate diagnosis of NP in LBLP is essential to ensure appropriate intervention. In the absence of a gold standard, the objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination and screening tool data for identifying NP in LBLP. This systematic review is reported in line with PRISMA and followed a pre-defined and published protocol. CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, AMED, Pedro and PubMed databases, key journals and the grey literature were searched from inception to 31 July 2019. Eligible studies included any study design reporting primary diagnostic data on the diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination or screening tool data to identify NP in LBLP, in an adult population. Two independent reviewers searched information sources, assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2) and used GRADE to assess overall quality of evidence. From 762 studies, 11 studies were included. Nine studies out of the 11 were at risk of bias. Moderate level evidence supports a cluster of eight signs (age, duration of disease, paroxysmal pain, pain worse in leg than back, typical dermatomal distribution, worse on coughing/sneezing/straining, finger to floor distance and paresis) for diagnosing lumbosacral nerve root compression, demonstrating moderate/high sensitivity (72%) and specificity (80%) values. Moderate level evidence supports the use of the StEP tool for diagnosing lumbar radicular pain, demonstrating high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (97%) values. Overall low-moderate level evidence supports the diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination and screening tool data to identify NP in LBLP. The weak evidence base is largely due to methodological flaws and indirectness regarding applicability of the included studies. The most promising diagnostic tools include a cluster of 8 patient history/clinical examination signs and the StEP tool. Low risk of bias and high level of evidence diagnostic utility studies are needed, in order for stronger recommendations to be made.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is a challenge for healthcare providers to manage. Neuropathic pain (NP) is highly prevalent in presentations of LBLP and an accurate diagnosis of NP in LBLP is essential to ensure appropriate intervention. In the absence of a gold standard, the objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination and screening tool data for identifying NP in LBLP.
METHODS
METHODS
This systematic review is reported in line with PRISMA and followed a pre-defined and published protocol. CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, AMED, Pedro and PubMed databases, key journals and the grey literature were searched from inception to 31 July 2019. Eligible studies included any study design reporting primary diagnostic data on the diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination or screening tool data to identify NP in LBLP, in an adult population. Two independent reviewers searched information sources, assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2) and used GRADE to assess overall quality of evidence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From 762 studies, 11 studies were included. Nine studies out of the 11 were at risk of bias. Moderate level evidence supports a cluster of eight signs (age, duration of disease, paroxysmal pain, pain worse in leg than back, typical dermatomal distribution, worse on coughing/sneezing/straining, finger to floor distance and paresis) for diagnosing lumbosacral nerve root compression, demonstrating moderate/high sensitivity (72%) and specificity (80%) values. Moderate level evidence supports the use of the StEP tool for diagnosing lumbar radicular pain, demonstrating high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (97%) values.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Overall low-moderate level evidence supports the diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination and screening tool data to identify NP in LBLP. The weak evidence base is largely due to methodological flaws and indirectness regarding applicability of the included studies. The most promising diagnostic tools include a cluster of 8 patient history/clinical examination signs and the StEP tool. Low risk of bias and high level of evidence diagnostic utility studies are needed, in order for stronger recommendations to be made.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32778086
doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03436-6
pii: 10.1186/s12891-020-03436-6
pmc: PMC7419221
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
532Références
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2013 Jul;72(7):662-80
pubmed: 23771220
Spine J. 2014 Sep 1;14(9):2028-37
pubmed: 24325881
Man Ther. 2009 Dec;14(6):623-9
pubmed: 19201249
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011 May;34(4):231-8
pubmed: 21621724
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 May;72(5):630-4
pubmed: 11971050
Eur J Pain. 2018 Jul;22(6):1160-1169
pubmed: 29436056
Korean J Pain. 2017 Jan;30(1):51-58
pubmed: 28119771
Pain. 2014 Apr;155(4):654-62
pubmed: 24291734
Acta Paediatr. 2007 Mar;96(3):338-41
pubmed: 17407452
Neurology. 2008 Apr 29;70(18):1630-5
pubmed: 18003941
BMC Neurol. 2012 Mar 06;12:8
pubmed: 22394606
Pain. 1995 Aug;62(2):233-40
pubmed: 8545149
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2001 Apr;40(4):460-6
pubmed: 11312387
BMJ. 2014 Feb 05;348:f7656
pubmed: 24500412
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 30;12(11):e0187961
pubmed: 29190718
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015 Aug;45(8):596-603
pubmed: 26107044
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018 Oct;48(10):767-774
pubmed: 29932873
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 24;9(11):e033187
pubmed: 31767596
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
PLoS Med. 2009 Apr 7;6(4):e1000047
pubmed: 19360087
Qual Health Res. 2012 Oct;22(10):1435-43
pubmed: 22829486
Man Ther. 2012 Aug;17(4):345-51
pubmed: 22465002
Clin J Pain. 2007 Feb;23(2):143-9
pubmed: 17237663
Physiotherapy. 2011 Mar;97(1):59-64
pubmed: 21295239
BMJ. 2008 May 17;336(7653):1106-10
pubmed: 18483053
Spine J. 2010 Mar;10(3):200-8
pubmed: 20006557
J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(2):118-23
pubmed: 20046554
PLoS One. 2011 May 09;6(5):e18018
pubmed: 21573064
Pain. 2008 Jun;136(3):380-7
pubmed: 17888574
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Oct;22(10):1911-20
pubmed: 17022849
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018 Feb;48(2):58-62
pubmed: 29385943
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 6;7(1):10598
pubmed: 28878316
Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 07;2:82
pubmed: 24099098
J Pain. 2017 Nov;18(11):1295-1312
pubmed: 28619698