Showing papers by "David Beckwée published in 2014"

Applying modern pain neuroscience in clinical practice: criteria for the classification of central sensitization pain.

Abstract: Background: The awareness is growing that central sensitization is of prime importance for the assessment and management of chronic pain, but its classification is challenging clinically since no gold standard method of assessment exists. Objectives: Designing the first set of classification criteria for the classification of central sensitization pain. Methods: A body of evidence from original research papers was used by 18 pain experts from 7 different countries to design the first classification criteria for central sensitization pain. Results: It is proposed that the classification of central sensitization pain entails 2 major steps: the exclusion of neuropathic pain and the differential classification of nociceptive versus central sensitization pain. For the former, the International Association for the Study of Pain diagnostic criteria are available for diagnosing or excluding neuropathic pain. For the latter, clinicians are advised to screen their patients for 3 major classification criteria, and use them to complete the classification algorithm for each individual patient with chronic pain. The first and obligatory criterion entails disproportionate pain, implying that the severity of pain and related reported or perceived disability are disproportionate to the nature and extent of injury or pathology (i.e., tissue damage or structural impairments). The 2 remaining criteria are 1) the presence of diffuse pain distribution, allodynia, and hyperalgesia; and 2) hypersensitivity of senses unrelated to the musculoskeletal system (defined as a score of at least 40 on the Central Sensitization Inventory). Limitations: Although based on direct and indirect research findings, the classification algorithm requires experimental testing in future studies. Conclusion: Clinicians can use the proposed classification algorithm for differentiating neuropathic, nociceptive, and central sensitization pain. Key words: Chronic pain, diagnosis, hypersensitivity, classification, neuropathic pain

Does robot-assisted gait rehabilitation improve balance in stroke patients? A systematic review.

Abstract: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the improvements in balance after robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) in stroke patients. Two databases were searched: PubMed and Web of Knowledge. The most important key words are "stroke," "RAGT," "balance," "Lokomat," and "gait trainer." Studies were included if stroke patients were involved in RAGT protocols, and balance was determined as an outcome measurement. The articles were checked for methodological quality by 2 reviewers (Cohen's κ = 0.72). Nine studies were included (7 true experimental and 2 pre-experimental studies; methodological quality score, 56%-81%). In total, 229 subacute or chronic stroke patients (70.5% male) were involved in RAGT (3 to 5 times per week, 3 to 10 weeks, 12 to 25 sessions). In 5 studies, the gait trainer was used; in 2, the Lokomat was used; in 1 study, a single-joint wearable knee orthosis was used; and in 1 study, the AutoAmbulator was used. Eight studies compared RAGT with other gait rehabilitation methods. Significant improvements (no to large effect sizes, Cohen's d = 0.01 to 3.01) in balance scores measured with the Berg Balance Scale, the Tinetti test, postural sway tests, and the Timed Up and Go test were found after RAGT. No significant differences in balance between the intervention and control groups were reported. RAGT can lead to improvements in balance in stroke patients; however, it is not clear whether the improvements are greater compared with those associated with other gait rehabilitation methods. Because a limited number of studies are available, more specific research (eg, randomized controlled trials with larger, specific populations) is necessary to draw stronger conclusions.

A systematic review investigating the relationship between efficacy and stimulation parameters when using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation after knee arthroplasty

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in the treatment of postoperative knee arthroplasty pain and to relate these results to the stimulation parameters used. Data Sources: PubMed, Pedro and Web of Knowledge were systematically screened for studies investigating effects of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation on postoperative knee arthroplasty pain. Review Methods: Studies were screened for their methodological and therapeutical quality. We appraised the influence of the stimulation settings used and indicated whether or not a neurophysiological and/or mechanistic rationale was given for these stimulation settings. Results: A total of 5 articles met the inclusion criteria. In total, 347 patients were investigated. The number of patients who received some form of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation was 117, and 54 patients received sham transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation. Pain was the primary outcome in all studies. The stimulation settings used in the studies (n = 2) that reported significant effects differed from the others as they implemented a submaximal stimulation intensity. Stimulation parameters were heterogeneous, and only one study provided a rationale for them. Conclusion: This review reveals that an effect of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation might have been missed due to low methodological and therapeutical quality. Justifying the choice of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation parameters may improve therapeutical quality.