Thomas N. Bryce

The international spinal cord injury pain basic data set.

Objective:To develop a basic pain data set (International Spinal Cord Injury Basic Pain Data Set, ISCIPDS:B) within the framework of the International spinal cord injury (SCI) data sets that would facilitate consistent collection and reporting of pain in the SCI population.Setting:International.Methods:The ISCIPDS:B was developed by a working group consisting of individuals with published evidence of expertise in SCI-related pain regarding taxonomy, psychophysics, psychology, epidemiology and assessment, and one representative of the Executive Committee of the International SCI Standards and Data Sets. The members were appointed by four major organizations with an interest in SCI-related pain (International Spinal Cord Society, ISCoS; American Spinal Injury Association, ASIA; American Pain Society, APS and International Association for the Study of Pain, IASP). The initial ISCIPDS:B was revised based on suggestions from members of the Executive Committee of the International SCI Standards and Data Sets, the ISCoS Scientific Committee, ASIA and APS Boards, and the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the IASP, individual reviewers and societies and the ISCoS Council.Results:The final ISCIPDS:B contains core questions about clinically relevant information concerning SCI-related pain that can be collected by health-care professionals with expertise in SCI in various clinical settings. The questions concern pain severity, physical and emotional function and include a pain-intensity rating, a pain classification and questions related to the temporal pattern of pain for each specific pain problem. The impact of pain on physical, social and emotional function, and sleep is evaluated for each pain.

Outcome measures in spinal cord injury: Recent assessments and recommendations for future directions

Study design:Review by the spinal cord outcomes partnership endeavor (SCOPE), which is a broad-based international consortium of scientists and clinical researchers representing academic institutions, industry, government agencies, not-for-profit organizations and foundations.Objectives:Assessment of current and evolving tools for evaluating human spinal cord injury (SCI) outcomes for both clinical diagnosis and clinical research studies.Methods:a framework for the appraisal of evidence of metric properties was used to examine outcome tools or tests for accuracy, sensitivity, reliability and validity for human SCI.Results:Imaging, neurological, functional, autonomic, sexual health, bladder/bowel, pain and psychosocial tools were evaluated. Several specific tools for human SCI studies have or are being developed to allow the more accurate determination for a clinically meaningful benefit (improvement in functional outcome or quality of life) being achieved as a result of a therapeutic intervention.Conclusion:Significant progress has been made, but further validation studies are required to identify the most appropriate tools for specific targets in a human SCI study or clinical trial.

Pain after spinal cord injury: an evidence-based review for clinical practice and research. Report of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Spinal Cord Injury Measures meeting.

Abstract Background/Objectives: To examine the reliability, validity, sensitivity, and practicality of various outcome measures for pain after spinal cord injury (SCI), and to provide recommendations for specific measures for use in clinical trials. Data Sources: Relevant articles were obtained through a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed databases from inception through 2006. Study Selection: The authors performed literature searches to find articles containing data relevant to the reliability and validity of each pain outcome measure in SCI and selected non-SCI populations. Data Extraction: After reviewing the articles, an investigator extracted information utilizing a standard template. A second investigator reviewed the chosen articles and the extracted pertinent information to confirm the findings of the first investigator. Data Synthesis: Taking into consideration both the quantity and quality of the studies analyzed, judgments on reliability and validity of the measures were made by the two investigators. Based upon these judgments, recommendations were formulated for use of specific measures in future clinical trials. In addition, for a subset of measures a voting process by a larger group of SCI experts allowed formulation of recommendations including determining which measures should be incorporated into a minimal dataset of measures for clinical trials and which ones need revision and further validity and reliability testing before use. Conclusions: A 0-10 Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) is recommended as the outcome measure for pain intensity after SCI, while the 7-Point Guy/Farrar Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale is recommended as the outcome measure for global improvement in pain. The SF-36 single pain interference question and the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) or Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain interference items are recommended as the outcome measures for pain interference after SCI. Brush or cotton wool and at least one high-threshold von Frey filament are recommended to test mechanical allodynia/hyperalgesia while a Peltier-type thermotester is recommended to test thermal allodynia/hyperalgesia. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) or Bryce-Ragnarsson pain taxonomies are recommended for classification of pain after SCI, while the Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) is recommended for measuring change in neuropathic pain and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) for quantitating neuropathic and nociceptive pain discrimination.

International Spinal Cord Injury Pain Classification: part I. Background and description

Study design:Discussion of issues and development of consensus.Objective:Present the background, purpose, development process, format and definitions of the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) Classification.Methods:An international group of spinal cord injury (SCI) and pain experts deliberated over 2 days, and then via e-mail communication developed a consensus classification of pain after SCI. The classification was reviewed by members of several professional organizations and their feedback was incorporated. The classification then underwent validation by an international group of clinicians with minimal exposure to the classification, using case study vignettes. Based upon the results of this study, further revisions were made to the ISCIP Classification.Results:An overall structure and terminology has been developed and partially validated as a merger of and improvement on previously published SCI pain classifications, combined with basic definitions proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain and pain characteristics described in published empiric studies of pain. The classification is designed to be comprehensive and to include pains that are directly related to the SCI pathology as well as pains that are common after SCI but are not necessarily mechanistically related to the SCI itself.Conclusions:The format and definitions presented should help experienced and non-experienced clinicians as well as clinical researchers classify pain after SCI.

The International Spinal Cord Injury Pain Basic Data Set (version 2.0)

Objectives:To revise the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain Basic Data Set (ISCIPBDS) based on new developments in the field and on suggestions from the spinal cord injury (SCI) and pain clinical and research community.Setting:International.Methods:The ISCIPBDS working group evaluated suggestions regarding the utility of the ISCIPBDS and made modifications in response to these and to significant developments in the field. The revised ISCIPBDS (version 2.0) was reviewed by members of the Executive Committee of the International SCI Standards and Data Sets, the International Spinal Cord Society (ISCoS) Executive and Scientific Committees, the American Spinal Injury Association and American Pain Society Boards and the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain, individual reviewers and societies and the ISCoS Council.Results:The ISCIPBDS (version 2.0) is significantly shortened but still contains clinically relevant core questions concerning SCI-related pain. The revisions include an updated SCI pain classification, omission of three questions regarding temporal pain pattern and three pain interference questions. The remaining three pain interference questions concern perceived interference with activities, mood and sleep for overall pain rather than for individual pain problems and are scored on a 0 to 10 scale.

Epidemiology and Classification of Pain After Spinal Cord Injury

The prevalence of pain after spinal cord injury (SCI) is reported to be between 65% and 80%; 20% to 30% of this pain is severe. The reported variability in prevalence may be due to a number of methodological factors, which include (a) different definitions of pain after SCI, both with regard to specific pain types and abnormal sensations regarded as pain, (b) variable response rates for surveys and inadequate sampling techniques, (c) variable time from injury until pain assessment, and (d) variability in the classification schemes of pain after SCI. In this article, various classification schemes of pain after SCI are reviewed. It may be hypothesized that widespread use of a comprehensive, but easily used, classification system of pain after SCI will enhance communication between physicians, basic researchers, and clinical researchers and will allow better understanding of this clinical problem through interstudy comparisons of both epidemiological and treatment outcome data. The classification system pre...

International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) Classification: Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes.

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.

Time and Effort Required by Persons with Spinal Cord Injury to Learn to Use a Powered Exoskeleton for Assisted Walking

BACKGROUND Powered exoskeletons have been demonstrated as being safe for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI), but little is known about how users learn to manage these devices. OBJECTIVE To quantify the time and effort required by persons with SCI to learn to use an exoskeleton for assisted walking. METHODS A convenience sample was enrolled to learn to use the first-generation Ekso powered exoskeleton to walk. Participants were given up to 24 weekly sessions of instruction. Data were collected on assistance level, walking distance and speed, heart rate, perceived exertion, and adverse events. Time and effort was quantified by the number of sessions required for participants to stand up, walk for 30 minutes, and sit down, initially with minimal and subsequently with contact guard assistance. RESULTS Of 22 enrolled participants, 9 screen-failed, and 7 had complete data. All of these 7 were men; 2 had tetraplegia and 5 had motor-complete injuries. Of these, 5 participants could stand, walk, and sit with contact guard or close supervision assistance, and 2 required minimal to moderate assistance. Walk times ranged from 28 to 94 minutes with average speeds ranging from 0.11 to 0.21 m/s. For all participants, heart rate changes and reported perceived exertion were consistent with light to moderate exercise. CONCLUSIONS This study provides preliminary evidence that persons with neurological weakness due to SCI can learn to walk with little or no assistance and light to somewhat hard perceived exertion using a powered exoskeleton. Persons with different severities of injury, including those with motor complete C7 tetraplegia and motor incomplete C4 tetraplegia, may be able to learn to use this device.

Cut Point Determination in the Measurement of Pain and Its Relationship to Psychosocial and Functional Measures After Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Retrospective Model Spinal Cord Injury System Analysis

OBJECTIVE To evaluate potential pain cutoff scores reflecting mild, moderate, and severe pain in the spinal cord injury (SCI) population and determine the relationship between the derived cutoff scores and both psychosocial and functional outcome measures. DESIGN Retrospective analysis. SETTING SCI Model Systems. PARTICIPANTS Persons (N=6096; age >18y) with traumatic SCI (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS] grades A-D; injured in 1973-2008). INTERVENTIONS Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Numeric rating scale (NRS) of pain severity (11 points), NRS of pain interference (5 points), Satisfaction With Life Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique Short-Form (CHART-SF), motor component of the FIM (M-FIM), and employment. RESULTS The best set of pain severity cutoff points are 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 7 to 10. This was validated by randomly assigning sample members to 2 groups and replicating. There were significant differences in all outcomes as a function of pain severity grouping, although they explained little of the variance in M-FIM and CHART-SF Physical Independence scale scores. Neurologic status differed significantly between pain groups, with incongruence between pain severity and interference in people in the AIS grade D group, who reported the greatest pain interference and least pain severity. CONCLUSION Pain severity can be categorized into groups that reflect pain interference. These groupings differentiate psychosocial well-being better than activity limitations. They do not provide a comprehensive pain assessment, for which pain type, location, and interference are likely to be necessary.

Reliability of the Bryce/Ragnarsson spinal cord injury pain taxonomy.

Abstract Background/Objective: Pain is a common secondary complication of spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the literature offers varying estimates of the numbers of persons with SCI who develop pain. The variability in these numbers is caused in part by differences in the classification of pain; there is currently no commonly accepted classification system for pain affecting persons after SCI. This study investigated the interrater reliability of the Bryce/Ragnarsson SCI pain taxonomy (BR-SCI-PT). The hypothesis was that, when used by physicians with minimal training in the BR-SCI-PT, it would have high interrater reliability for the categorization of reported pains. Methods: One hundred thirty-five vignettes, each of which described a person with SCI with one or more different etiologic subtypes of pain, were evaluated by 5 groups of up to 10 physicians with SCI subspecialization (39 respondents total). Physician classifications were compared with those made by the investigators. Results: Of 1 79 pain descriptions, 83% were categorized correctly to one of the 15 BR-SCI-PT pain types; 93% were categorized correctly with respect to level (above/at/below neurological level of injury), whereas 90% were categorized correctly as being either nociceptive or neuropathic. Subjects expressed a generally high confidence in the correctness of their classifications. Conclusions: Substantial interrater agreement was achieved in determining subtypes of pain within the BR- SCI-PT. The agreement was improved for categorizing within less restrictive categories (ie, with respect to the neurological level of injury and whether the pain was nociceptive or neuropathic).