Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

An Epidemiological Study of Neuropathic Pain Symptoms in Canadian Adults


Affiliations
1 School of Nursing and Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
2 School of Nursing, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
3 Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 4DB, United Kingdom
4 Population Health Sciences, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 4DB, United Kingdom
5 Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
6 Departments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine and Biomedical & Molecular Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
 

The reported prevalence of neuropathic pain ranges from 6.9% to 10%; however the only Canadian study reported 17.9%. The objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology of neuropathic pain in Canada. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a random sample of Canadian adults. The response rate was 21.1% (1504/7134). Likely or possible neuropathic pain was defined using a neuropathic pain-related diagnosis and a positive outcome on the Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale (S-LANSS) or the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) Questions. The prevalence of likely neuropathic pain was 1.9% (S-LANSS) and 3.4% (DN4) and that of possible neuropathic pain was 5.8% (S-LANSS) and 8.1% (DN4).Neuropathic pain was highest in economically disadvantaged males.There is a significant burden of neuropathic pain in Canada.The low response rate and a slightly older and less educated sample than the Canadian population may have led to an overestimate of neuropathic pain. Population prevalence varies by screening tool used, indicatingmore work is needed to develop reliablemeasures. Population level screening targeted towards high risk groups should improve the sensitivity and specificity of screening, while clinical examination of those with positive screening results will further refine the estimate of prevalence.
User
Notifications
Font Size

Abstract Views: 72

PDF Views: 0




  • An Epidemiological Study of Neuropathic Pain Symptoms in Canadian Adults

Abstract Views: 72  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Elizabeth G. VanDenKerkhof
School of Nursing and Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
Elizabeth G. Mann
School of Nursing, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
Nicola Torrance
Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 4DB, United Kingdom
Blair H. Smith
Population Health Sciences, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 4DB, United Kingdom
Ana Johnson
Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
Ian Gilron
Departments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine and Biomedical & Molecular Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada

Abstract


The reported prevalence of neuropathic pain ranges from 6.9% to 10%; however the only Canadian study reported 17.9%. The objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology of neuropathic pain in Canada. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a random sample of Canadian adults. The response rate was 21.1% (1504/7134). Likely or possible neuropathic pain was defined using a neuropathic pain-related diagnosis and a positive outcome on the Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale (S-LANSS) or the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) Questions. The prevalence of likely neuropathic pain was 1.9% (S-LANSS) and 3.4% (DN4) and that of possible neuropathic pain was 5.8% (S-LANSS) and 8.1% (DN4).Neuropathic pain was highest in economically disadvantaged males.There is a significant burden of neuropathic pain in Canada.The low response rate and a slightly older and less educated sample than the Canadian population may have led to an overestimate of neuropathic pain. Population prevalence varies by screening tool used, indicatingmore work is needed to develop reliablemeasures. Population level screening targeted towards high risk groups should improve the sensitivity and specificity of screening, while clinical examination of those with positive screening results will further refine the estimate of prevalence.