International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification

Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes

T. N. Bryce, F. Biering-Sørensen, N. B. Finnerup, D. D. Cardenas, R. Defrin, E. Ivan, T. Lundeberg, C. Norrbrink, J. S. Richards, P. Siddall, T. Stripling, R. D. Treede, S. G. Waxman, Eva Widerstrom-Noga, R. P. Yezierski, M. Dijkers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study design: International validation study using self-administered surveys. Objectives: To investigate the utility and reliability of the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) Classification as used by clinicians. Methods: Seventy-five clinical vignettes (case histories) were prepared by the members of the ISCIP Classification group and assigned to a category by consensus. Vignettes were incorporated into an Internet survey distributed to clinicians. Clinicians were asked, for each vignette, to decide on the number of pain components present and to classify each using the ISCIP Classification. Results: The average respondent had 86% of the questions on the number of pain components correct. The overall correctness in determining whether pain was nociceptive was 79%, whereas the correctness in determining whether pain was neuropathic was 77%. Correctness in determining if pain was musculoskeletal was 84%, whereas for visceral pain, neuropathic at-level spinal cord injury (SCI) and below-level SCI pain it was 85%, 57% and 73%, respectively. Using strict criteria, the overall correctness in determining pain type was 68% (versus an expected 95%), but with maximally relaxed criteria, it increased to 85%. Conclusions: The reliability of use of the ISCIP Classification by clinicians (who received minimal training in its use) using a clinical vignette approach is moderate. Some subtypes of pain proved challenging to classify. The ISCIP should be tested for reliability by applying it to real persons with pain after SCI. Based on the results of this validation process, the instructions accompanying the ISCIP Classification for classifying subtypes of pain have been clarified.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)404-412
Number of pages9
JournalSpinal Cord
Volume50
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2012

Fingerprint

Spinal Cord Injuries
Pain
Visceral Pain
Nociceptive Pain
Musculoskeletal Pain
Validation Studies
Neuralgia
Internet
Consensus

Keywords

  • classification
  • pain
  • spinal cord injuries
  • validity
  • vignettes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Neurology

Cite this

Bryce, T. N., Biering-Sørensen, F., Finnerup, N. B., Cardenas, D. D., Defrin, R., Ivan, E., ... Dijkers, M. (2012). International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification: Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes. Spinal Cord, 50(6), 404-412. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2012.2

International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification : Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes. / Bryce, T. N.; Biering-Sørensen, F.; Finnerup, N. B.; Cardenas, D. D.; Defrin, R.; Ivan, E.; Lundeberg, T.; Norrbrink, C.; Richards, J. S.; Siddall, P.; Stripling, T.; Treede, R. D.; Waxman, S. G.; Widerstrom-Noga, Eva; Yezierski, R. P.; Dijkers, M.

In: Spinal Cord, Vol. 50, No. 6, 01.06.2012, p. 404-412.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bryce, TN, Biering-Sørensen, F, Finnerup, NB, Cardenas, DD, Defrin, R, Ivan, E, Lundeberg, T, Norrbrink, C, Richards, JS, Siddall, P, Stripling, T, Treede, RD, Waxman, SG, Widerstrom-Noga, E, Yezierski, RP & Dijkers, M 2012, 'International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification: Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes', Spinal Cord, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 404-412. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2012.2
Bryce TN, Biering-Sørensen F, Finnerup NB, Cardenas DD, Defrin R, Ivan E et al. International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification: Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes. Spinal Cord. 2012 Jun 1;50(6):404-412. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2012.2
Bryce, T. N. ; Biering-Sørensen, F. ; Finnerup, N. B. ; Cardenas, D. D. ; Defrin, R. ; Ivan, E. ; Lundeberg, T. ; Norrbrink, C. ; Richards, J. S. ; Siddall, P. ; Stripling, T. ; Treede, R. D. ; Waxman, S. G. ; Widerstrom-Noga, Eva ; Yezierski, R. P. ; Dijkers, M. / International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification : Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes. In: Spinal Cord. 2012 ; Vol. 50, No. 6. pp. 404-412.
@article{a3cc92787e534a0d8ef39eb0682c4181,
title = "International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification: Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes",
abstract = "Study design: International validation study using self-administered surveys. Objectives: To investigate the utility and reliability of the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) Classification as used by clinicians. Methods: Seventy-five clinical vignettes (case histories) were prepared by the members of the ISCIP Classification group and assigned to a category by consensus. Vignettes were incorporated into an Internet survey distributed to clinicians. Clinicians were asked, for each vignette, to decide on the number of pain components present and to classify each using the ISCIP Classification. Results: The average respondent had 86{\%} of the questions on the number of pain components correct. The overall correctness in determining whether pain was nociceptive was 79{\%}, whereas the correctness in determining whether pain was neuropathic was 77{\%}. Correctness in determining if pain was musculoskeletal was 84{\%}, whereas for visceral pain, neuropathic at-level spinal cord injury (SCI) and below-level SCI pain it was 85{\%}, 57{\%} and 73{\%}, respectively. Using strict criteria, the overall correctness in determining pain type was 68{\%} (versus an expected 95{\%}), but with maximally relaxed criteria, it increased to 85{\%}. Conclusions: The reliability of use of the ISCIP Classification by clinicians (who received minimal training in its use) using a clinical vignette approach is moderate. Some subtypes of pain proved challenging to classify. The ISCIP should be tested for reliability by applying it to real persons with pain after SCI. Based on the results of this validation process, the instructions accompanying the ISCIP Classification for classifying subtypes of pain have been clarified.",
keywords = "classification, pain, spinal cord injuries, validity, vignettes",
author = "Bryce, {T. N.} and F. Biering-S{\o}rensen and Finnerup, {N. B.} and Cardenas, {D. D.} and R. Defrin and E. Ivan and T. Lundeberg and C. Norrbrink and Richards, {J. S.} and P. Siddall and T. Stripling and Treede, {R. D.} and Waxman, {S. G.} and Eva Widerstrom-Noga and Yezierski, {R. P.} and M. Dijkers",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1038/sc.2012.2",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "404--412",
journal = "Spinal Cord",
issn = "1362-4393",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification

T2 - Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes

AU - Bryce, T. N.

AU - Biering-Sørensen, F.

AU - Finnerup, N. B.

AU - Cardenas, D. D.

AU - Defrin, R.

AU - Ivan, E.

AU - Lundeberg, T.

AU - Norrbrink, C.

AU - Richards, J. S.

AU - Siddall, P.

AU - Stripling, T.

AU - Treede, R. D.

AU - Waxman, S. G.

AU - Widerstrom-Noga, Eva

AU - Yezierski, R. P.

AU - Dijkers, M.

PY - 2012/6/1

Y1 - 2012/6/1

N2 - Study design: International validation study using self-administered surveys. Objectives: To investigate the utility and reliability of the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) Classification as used by clinicians. Methods: Seventy-five clinical vignettes (case histories) were prepared by the members of the ISCIP Classification group and assigned to a category by consensus. Vignettes were incorporated into an Internet survey distributed to clinicians. Clinicians were asked, for each vignette, to decide on the number of pain components present and to classify each using the ISCIP Classification. Results: The average respondent had 86% of the questions on the number of pain components correct. The overall correctness in determining whether pain was nociceptive was 79%, whereas the correctness in determining whether pain was neuropathic was 77%. Correctness in determining if pain was musculoskeletal was 84%, whereas for visceral pain, neuropathic at-level spinal cord injury (SCI) and below-level SCI pain it was 85%, 57% and 73%, respectively. Using strict criteria, the overall correctness in determining pain type was 68% (versus an expected 95%), but with maximally relaxed criteria, it increased to 85%. Conclusions: The reliability of use of the ISCIP Classification by clinicians (who received minimal training in its use) using a clinical vignette approach is moderate. Some subtypes of pain proved challenging to classify. The ISCIP should be tested for reliability by applying it to real persons with pain after SCI. Based on the results of this validation process, the instructions accompanying the ISCIP Classification for classifying subtypes of pain have been clarified.

AB - Study design: International validation study using self-administered surveys. Objectives: To investigate the utility and reliability of the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) Classification as used by clinicians. Methods: Seventy-five clinical vignettes (case histories) were prepared by the members of the ISCIP Classification group and assigned to a category by consensus. Vignettes were incorporated into an Internet survey distributed to clinicians. Clinicians were asked, for each vignette, to decide on the number of pain components present and to classify each using the ISCIP Classification. Results: The average respondent had 86% of the questions on the number of pain components correct. The overall correctness in determining whether pain was nociceptive was 79%, whereas the correctness in determining whether pain was neuropathic was 77%. Correctness in determining if pain was musculoskeletal was 84%, whereas for visceral pain, neuropathic at-level spinal cord injury (SCI) and below-level SCI pain it was 85%, 57% and 73%, respectively. Using strict criteria, the overall correctness in determining pain type was 68% (versus an expected 95%), but with maximally relaxed criteria, it increased to 85%. Conclusions: The reliability of use of the ISCIP Classification by clinicians (who received minimal training in its use) using a clinical vignette approach is moderate. Some subtypes of pain proved challenging to classify. The ISCIP should be tested for reliability by applying it to real persons with pain after SCI. Based on the results of this validation process, the instructions accompanying the ISCIP Classification for classifying subtypes of pain have been clarified.

KW - classification

KW - pain

KW - spinal cord injuries

KW - validity

KW - vignettes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861853840&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861853840&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/sc.2012.2

DO - 10.1038/sc.2012.2

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 404

EP - 412

JO - Spinal Cord

JF - Spinal Cord

SN - 1362-4393

IS - 6

ER -