Nociplastic Pain Criteria or Recognition of Central Sensitization? Pain Phenotyping in the Past, Present and Future
- PMID: 34361986
- PMCID: PMC8347369
- DOI: 10.3390/jcm10153203
Nociplastic Pain Criteria or Recognition of Central Sensitization? Pain Phenotyping in the Past, Present and Future
Abstract
Recently, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) released clinical criteria and a grading system for nociplastic pain affecting the musculoskeletal system. These criteria replaced the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant central sensitization (CS) pain and accounted for clinicians' need to identify (early) and correctly classify patients having chronic pain according to the pain phenotype. Still, clinicians and researchers can become confused by the multitude of terms and the variety of clinical criteria available. Therefore, this paper aims at (1) providing an overview of what preceded the IASP criteria for nociplastic pain ('the past'); (2) explaining the new IASP criteria for nociplastic pain in comparison with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain ('the present'); and (3) highlighting key areas for future implementation and research work in this area ('the future'). It is explained that the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are in line with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain but are more robust, comprehensive, better developed and hold more potential. Therefore, the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are important steps towards precision pain medicine, yet studies examining the clinimetric and psychometric properties of the criteria are urgently needed.
Keywords: central sensitization; neuropathic; nociceptive; nociplastic pain; precision medicine.
Conflict of interest statement
J.N. and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel received lecturing/teaching fees from various professional associations and educational organizations, and J.N. authored a Dutch book on central sensitization. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.
Figures
References
-
- Roberts N.L., Mountjoy-Venning W.C., Anjomshoa M., Banoub J.A.M., Yasin Y.J. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392:1789–1858. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Cieza A., Causey K., Kamenov K., Hanson S.W., Chatterji S., Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2021;396:2006–2017. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32340-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Vos T., Barber R.M., Bell B., Bertozzi-Villa A., Biryukov S., Bolliger I., Charlson F., Davis A., Degenhardt L., Dicker D., et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386:743–800. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous