Skip to main content
Download PDF

Not All Pain is Created Equal: Basic Definitions and Diagnostic Work-Up

Pain and Therapy volume 9, pages 1–15 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Chronic pain is considered a public health priority by the World Health Organization and European health institutions. It has reached alarming proportions in terms of disability, consumption of health and social resources, and impact on primary and specialist care services. Primary care physicians are often called on to manage this condition. Chronic pain management can be challenging due to its complexity. It has traditionally been considered to include nociceptive pain that that persists longer than the normal healing time, neuropathic pain lasting more than 3 months, or a combination of these. More recently, a third descriptor, nociplastic (primary) pain, was added to classify patients with chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia, nonspecific back pain, or mixed pain that persists or other conditions in which altered central pain modulation results in central sensitization and chronic pain in the absence of actual or threatened damage to tissues, including in the somatosensory nervous system. This document provides an overview of pain types and their underlying mechanisms. Successful pain management is facilitated by identification of the pain type. A set of diagnostic tools and a pain algorithm are presented to guide the clinician toward the correct diagnosis. The algorithm identifies cases that may require referral to a pain specialist. Once the site of origin of the pain (the “pain generator”) is identified, or a primary pain syndrome is suspected, the accompanying article provides information and rationale to support treatment decisions based on patient characteristics.

FormalPara Key Summary Points
Chronic pain is prevalent and burdensome.
This publication reviews the basic mechanisms underlying chronic pain and presents a pathway for identifying the points where painful impulses are generated or modified, the so-called “pain generators”.
We propose the SIMG 3.0 approach from the Italian Society of General Medicine to decrease misdiagnosis and promote the appropriate management of patients with chronic pain.
The accompanying article covers pharmacological treatment for patients with chronic non-cancer pain, based on the underlying pain generator and patient characteristics.
Patients with refractory chronic pain, especially pain with neuropathic or nociplastic characteristics, should be referred to specialty care.

Digital Features

This article is published with digital features, including a summary slide, to facilitate understanding of the article. To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13182746.

Introduction

The clinical problem of "chronic pain" has reached alarming proportions in terms of disability, consumption of health and social resources, and impact on primary and specialist care services [1, 2]. This public health problem is considered a priority by the World Health Organization (WHO), European health institutions, and the Italian Ministry of Health. In a survey of prescribing practices and training needs for pain management among 636 Canadian GPs, development of skills for patient evaluation and differential diagnoses of chronic pain received the highest priority [3]. Pain education can improve the confidence and knowledge of GPs and outcomes for their patients with chronic pain [4,5,6].

Recently, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has updated its definition of pain as “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage” [7]. Acute pain has a sudden onset, short duration, and is clearly associated with a cause. The IASP defines chronic pain as “pain that lasts or recurs for longer than 3 months [8]. Note that this inclusive definition establishes a pain duration but does not indicate a cause, thereby covering pain of uncertain origin.

Until recently, chronic pain conditions were not represented systematically in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) maintained by the WHO. In the 11th revision of the ICD, a task force of the IASP has established a new classification of chronic pain that is applicable in in primary care and specialized settings [9]. This classification distinguishes between chronic primary pain and six chronic secondary pain conditions (Box 1).

Box 1 Classification of chronic pain in version 11 of the International Classification of Diseases developed by the International Association for the Study of Pain and the World Health Organization [9]
Full size table

Moderate-to-severe acute pain is a risk factor for developing chronic pain [17]. Most patients with chronic pain are managed in general practice [18].

Chronic pain can have a variety of mechanisms, and can include nociceptive, neuropathic, and or nociplastic (primary) pain. Rational choice of therapy is greatly facilitated by the correct diagnosis of the type and mechanism of pain, and identification of the points where painful impulses are generated or modified, the so-called “pain generators”. Comprehensive instruments are needed to accomplish this.

With reference to the IASP classification, we emphasize the difference between primary and secondary pain: the main role of a general practitioner is primarily to look after patients affected by secondary pain, since patients with primary pain are more complex and should be referred to multidisciplinary pain centers.

We propose the SIMG 3.0 approach from the Italian Society of General Medicine to decrease misdiagnosis and promote the appropriate treatment of chronic pain. The accompanying article provides an overview of pharmacological strategies based on the type of pain identified [19]. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Epidemiology

Estimates of the prevalence of chronic pain among adults in the general population vary widely from 2 to 40% or more [20,21,22], although most studies report values between 10 and 30%. The variability may be due to how chronic pain is defined and how data is collected (e.g., telephone surveys vs. observational or registry studies) [23], or to social or cultural differences among populations [24]. In 1998, the WHO reported the results of a chronic pain survey conducted in 15 primary care centers around the world [25]. The overall estimated prevalence from 5438 random interviews was 22%, with wide variation between centers (range, 5.5–33.0%). A meta-analysis focusing on 28 low- and middle-income countries reported chronic pain in 34% of adults in the general population [26]. A pooled estimate of chronic pain among adult UK residents revealed a prevalence of 43.5% (95% CIs 38.4–48.6%) [27]. A survey of 6000 adults in Japan revealed a chronic pain prevalence of 39.3% [28]. The US CDC estimated the prevalence of chronic pain at 20.4% among adults, based on the 2016 National Health Interview Survey [29]. In France, a mail survey with nearly 25,000 respondents revealed a chronic pain prevalence of 31.7% [30].

Prevalence in Italy

An observational study published in 2005 involving 89 Italian general practitioners (1432 contacts) found that about one-third of outpatients in general medicine reported pain, and this was chronic in about half of cases [31]. In 2006, the Italian Society of General Medicine conducted a prospective study that identified 6155 patients who visited their GPs for pain not associated with infections or migraine. The estimated prevalence of chronic pain was 3% [32]. Results of a European study on pain in which 3849 phone calls and 300 in-depth interviews were conducted in Italy estimated the prevalence of chronic pain at 26%, with more women than men being affected [33]. This result was similar to that of a cross-sectional population survey of nearly 1300 adults in Narni, Italy, which revealed a chronic pain prevalence of 28.4% [34].

Impact of Chronic Pain on Quality of Life and Work Productivity

Chronic pain significantly affects physical and psychological health, impacting both function and quality of life [35,36,37]. It is often associated with anxiety or depression that may complicate management or exacerbate pain perception [38]. Chronic pain is responsible for increased use of healthcare resources [2, 39, 40] and loss of work productivity due to absenteeism as well as reduced function [37, 41,42,43,44].

Critical Issues Regarding the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Pain in General Practice

  1. 1.

    GPs do not routinely explore the different components of pain in their assessment, citing a lack of time [45].

  2. 2.

    A structured and coherent approach to collecting the anamnesis and evaluating symptoms and signs to identify the type and origin of the pain is lacking [45].

  3. 3.

    The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in chronic pain therapy is excessive, and often inappropriate both in terms of efficacy and the risks of side effects [41, 46].

  4. 4.

    Opioid analgesic drugs are often not used when indicated in various care settings in Italy [48].

  5. 5.

    There is a lack of homogeneity in the use of specialist services, both in terms of which patients to refer and when to refer them [49].

Development of a Diagnostic Algorithm

Identification of these problems, combined with acknowledgement that chronic pain is a major problem and an increasing burden prompted the Italian Society of General Medicine (SIMG) to involve GPs, representatives of scientific societies, institutions, and patient associations in a consensus-building process and the elaboration of a document [50]. The output includes an algorithm for structuring diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for chronic pain in general medicine. The algorithm was refined during training courses organized by SIMG, which involved approximately 180 GPs, and was subsequently assessed and revised by a multidisciplinary work group initiated by the Italian Ministry of Health [51].

The resulting chronic pain algorithm for GPs consists of a structured evaluation with clinical tests that distinguish neuropathic from nociceptive pain and, thus, mechanical structural pain from pain linked to inflammation. The goal is to identify the site of origin of the pain (the “pain generator”) which, together with assessment of pain intensity, guides the most appropriate choice of therapy.

In pain literature [52], reference is made to the need to use various blocks in order to identify the origin of pain, by using two blocks with two different anesthetics (lidocaine and bupivacaine) for the duration of action, in order to reduce false positives and false negatives. It has to be said that this method replaces the use of placebo, which may raise significant ethical concerns. Two blocks with different anesthetics are considered by many clinicians (especially in the United States) to be an excessive cost for the healthcare system and, as we argue, should be used only in doubtful cases when the pain has not disappeared. Most clinicians believe that the use of lidocaine is indicative, for the duration of action of the local anesthetic, with the disappearance of both spontaneous and evoked pain. It should also be emphasized the pain relief obtained with the two different local anesthetics is perceived by the patient differently to the advantage of lidocaine. A successful result of the test is not only related to the anesthetic used but also to the active co-operation of the patient involved with it.

The algorithm identifies cases that may require referral to a pain specialist.

The Proposed Approach

Differentiating among pain types can be difficult, but it facilitates identifying the correct therapy. A systematic approach is needed.

Basic Definitions and Implications

The Somatosensory System

Nociceptive neurons from sensory ganglia innervate somatic and visceral regions and connect to the spinal cord and brain stem, mediating sensory signal transmission from a first neuron in the peripheral nervous system to a second neuron in the central nervous systems. The cell body of the first neuron is in the dorsal root ganglion of the spinal nerve (or sensory cranial nerve ganglia). The cell body of the second neuron is in the spinal cord (or brainstem) and decussates to the contralateral side in the spinal cord (or brainstem). These constitute the ascending pathway that initiates the awareness of pain. A second, descending pathway modulates pain perception by modifying conditions at the synapse between the first and second neurons of the ascending pathway. Spinal sensitization occurs when ascending impulses are amplified.

Pain Types

Nociceptive pain is the most common type. It plays a key role in sending warning signals to protect the body from (further) injury in response to noxious chemical, thermal, or mechanical stress. Pain receptors for these noxious stimuli have relatively high thresholds [54], compared for example to tactile receptors. Myelinated A-delta peripheral nerve fibers are involved in the rapid transmission of short-lived signal to the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, which then relays the signal to the central nervous system. Unmyelinated C peripheral nerve fibers transmit slow, long-lived impulses, for example nociceptive pain signals triggered by inflammatory mediators like histamine. Nociceptive pain can be further divided into somatic and visceral pain. Somatic pain is superficial or deep pain that originates in peripheral tissues (e.g., skin, muscle, bone). Visceral pain originates within the abdomen or specific organs (Box 2).

Box 2 Pain terminology from the International Association for the Study of Pain [53]
Full size table

Neuropathic pain is a second general type of pain that arises “as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system”, [55]. Impulses are generated from ectopic sites due to damage or dysfunction of the peripheral nervous system (peripheral neuropathic pain) or central nervous system (central neuropathic pain) [55]. These ectopic impulses generate the sensation of pain in the innervated area (positive symptoms), while the nerve damage causes sensory deficits in the innervated area (negative symptoms). The location of these symptoms should be consistent with a neurological pattern. Depending on the cause, neuropathic pain can be generalized or localized [56]. The most relevant causes of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) include painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), HIV-associated neuropathy (HIV-AN), and chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Neuropathic pain represents a significant burden for patients, society, and healthcare systems [57] that is associated with more severe pain, higher workplace absenteeism, and higher medical costs compared to chronic non-neuropathic pain [58]. It requires a different therapeutic approach from nociceptive pain and can be challenging to treat [59, 60].

A study conducted with 113 general practitioners in Italy who saw 58,480 adults over a 3-month period revealed a prevalence of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain of 0.77% [61]. Diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic pain were the two most common types (0.31 and 0.24%, respectively). Studies in the United Kingdom and France have estimated that among patients in the general population with chronic pain, 6–8% have neuropathic pain [30, 62]; whereas about half of the patients attending pain clinics have neuropathic pain. A systematic review of epidemiological studies of neuropathic pain in the general population revealed an estimated prevalence between 7 and 10% [63]. This is projected to increase due to population aging, rising obesity, and longer cancer survival with chemotherapy that may have neuropathic pain as a side effect [64].

A third pain type, called nociplastic pain, is defined by the IASP as “pain that arises from altered nociception despite no clear evidence of actual or threatened tissue damage causing the activation of peripheral nociceptors or evidence for disease or lesion of the somatosensory system causing the pain” [53]. It can be considered a form of primary pain, which is defined as pain in one or more anatomical regions that (1) “persists or recurs for longer than 3 months”, (2) “is associated with significant emotional distress”, and (3) has symptoms that “are not better accounted for by another diagnosis” [10]. Whereas chronic secondary pain can be considered a symptom of another condition, in chronic primary pain, the pain itself may be considered a disease. Some of the conditions in this classification include chronic widespread pain such as fibromyalgia and complex regional pain syndromes, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic nonspecific low back pain. These conditions often involve central sensitization [65] and may be associated with psychological distress, fear-avoidance, and pain catastrophizing. Patients may benefit from suitable cognitive and behavioral strategies.

The Central Sensitisation Inventory may be useful for identifying patients with key symptoms associated with this con [66]. It may be difficult to distinguish fibromyalgia from other conditions that cause chronic widespread pain [67]. In addition to quantifying the number of painful sites, an instrument like the FibroDetect® questionnaire for fibromyalgia can be useful for supporting diagnosis [68].

Differentiating Nociceptive and Neuropathic Pain

Screening tools (reviewed in [69]) include the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) [70], the PainDETECT score [71], the LANSS [72] or the DN4 [73]. The LANSS and DN4 may be more specific because, in addition to the questionnaire, they include a rudimentary clinical assessment [74]. It is important to note that while these tools are useful for screening purposes, they cannot replace a thorough clinical assessment [75]. A careful history, evaluation of the pain quality, and a neurological examination to assess sensory function can provide important clues to the type of pain. Careful delineation of the painful area and any sensory abnormalities permits identification of specific peripheral nerve or nerve root involvement (Fig. 1).

Mixed pain can occur in cancer patients when neoplastic growth causes damage to both somatic tissue and nerve tissue [76]. Although not clearly defined in guidelines (reviewed in [77]), mixed nociceptive–neuropathic pain can occur also in low back pain with radicular pain. In this case, inflammation from tissue damage causes and sustains the neuropathic pain [78]. Essentially, there is a partial nerve fiber lesion, such that ectopic discharges are stimulated by mechanical or inflammatory stimuli, but the lesion is not severe enough to produce a conduction deficit. The resulting pain will be sensed in areas compatible with innervation. Chronic lower back pain may also be primary musculoskeletal pain, especially if accompanied by significant psychosocial contributors.

Activation of pain signaling in response to a painful stimulus is not static. The pain threshold, or sensitivity, can be modulated by a large variety of sensitizing agents (e.g., prostaglandins, inflammatory cytokines, etc.) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Copyright 2006. American Society for Neurochemistry]

Nerve impulse transduction, conduction, transmission, modulation, and perception. Modified with permission from Basic Neurochemistry. Molecular, Cellular and Medical Aspects. Edited by GJ Siegel, RW. Albers, ST Brady, DL Price. Chapter 57 Pain, M. Costigan et al. pp 927–937. VII Eds Elsevier [

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Reproduced with permission from Golan, David E., Armen H. Tashjian, and Ehrin J. Armstrong, eds. Principles of pharmacology: the pathophysiologic basis of drug therapy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2011

Sensitizing agents lower the threshold for pain receptors.

Full size image

Hyperalgesia occurs when nociceptors detect a noxious stimulus as more painful than expected. Allodynia occurs when a completely non-noxious stimulus (e.g., light touch) causes pain. Allodynia can also result from damaged nociceptors on peripheral nerves. Hyperalgesia and allodynia may be associated with either nociceptive or neuropathic pain, although the underlying mechanisms are different. In the case of nociceptive pain, allodynia is mainly the result of peripheral sensitization and is often called primary allodynia to underscore the fact that it identifies the pain generator. Sometimes the area of allodynia extends beyond the pain generator. This phenomenon is due to central sensitization that causes an enlargement of the receptor fields in the spinal cord and is called secondary allodynia.

In neuropathic pain, allodynia, which is often called mechanical or dynamic allodynia, is due to more complex mechanisms that involve modification of the electrical activity at the ectopic site on damaged fibers, combined with central sensitization. In central sensitization due to peripheral neuropathic pain, there is extensive participation of wide dynamic range (WDR) neurons that connect tactile fiber activity with the nociceptive pathways.

Referred pain is perceived in a location other than where it originates. Figure 3 schematically illustrates the possible patterns of referred pain (consult anatomical maps for more detailed information). The pain is always referred to a site outside the territory of innervation of the responsible structure, but generally in the same spinal segment (convergence; e.g., the arm in angina, the shoulder in biliary colic) or when two organs share overlapping peripheral innervation (dichotomy; e.g., colon and bladder). Visceral pain may be referred to specific superficial sites.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Referred pain patterns

Full size image

Referred pain should not be confused with secondary allodynia, in which spinal sensitization enlarges the area where pain is perceived and where pain can be elicited with normally painless stimuli.

Diagnostic Workup Using the SIMG Method Version 3.0

The diagnosis is made by combining the information reviewed in the previous sections with the results from the six observations/tests below, which can be performed in the office using the simple tools shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Simple instruments for conducting the pain assessment. a A tube of warm water (40 °C), b a soft-bristle brush, c whiteboard markers I 3 colors, d soft cotton or gauze, e sharp objects such as a paperclip or pin

Full size image

Diagnostic Workup

From the patient’s medical history, determine whether they have a neurological condition that is associated with nerve fiber lesions, such as multiple sclerosis or herpes zoster infection.

  1. 1.

    The first step is to delineate the affected area with a whiteboard marking pen to outline the confines of the area in which pain or discomfort is provoked by light touch. Once this area is circumscribed, we use the red pen to identify the zone(s) of major pain within this area (Fig. 5).

  2. 2.

    Are there particular elements in the painful area (e.g., corresponding to a plexus, root or nerve)?

  3. 3.

    Are there any signs of somatosensory system deficiency?

    Three stimuli are used to test for sensitivity to light touch discrimination (cotton ball or gauze), pinprick (paperclip/pin) and temperature (tube of water at 40 °C) (Fig. 6).

    Explain the procedure to the patient, including the purpose of the assessment: "I will now test the sensibility inside the area and compare it to outside of the area. When I ask whether you feel the stimulus, please respond yes or no". Touch lightly with the cotton ball inside the area and compare to outside (contralateral location), asking for a response at each touch. Repeat this procedure with a gentle poke using an opened paperclip and then again with the tube of warm water. From this assessment, we can determine whether the patient has partial or total sensory deficits indicative of neuropathic pain (Fig. 6). Assessment of sensation within the affected area and comparison with surrounding unaffected area.

  4. 4.

    Are there any signs of receptor sensitization (primary allodynia)?

    The next step involves searching for primary allodynia by determining whether a normally painless contact (light brushing, gentle pressing with finger) within the area causes discomfort or pain.

  5. 5.

    Are there any signs of spinal sensitization (secondary allodynia)?

    This is tested by applying gentle strokes with a soft bristle brush in and adjacent to the pain area. If secondary allodynia is present, brushing will provoke discomfort or pain. Indicate any zones of secondary allodynia on the patient with a different color marker.

  6. 6.

    Are there inconsistencies?

Fig. 5
figure 5

Topographic definition of the symptomatic area

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Assessment with a cotton swab of tactile sensitivity in the pain area declared by the patient

Full size image

Armed with the results of these simple inquiries and a thorough anamnesis with assessment of psychological stress, the type of pain can be identified using the algorithm (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7figure 7

Part A: Diagnostic algorithm. Part B: Diagnosis of nociceptive pain

Full size image

Cases to Illustrate the Algorithm

Case 1

A young patient with loss of tactile, thermal and pain sensation in the 2nd, 3rd finger of the right hand in the distal part (last phalanx), also feeling pain in the cervical spine.

An initial hypothesis suggested cervical root pain. However, the extent of the peripheral signs did not support this view. A further diagnostic intervention revealed that the patient held incandescent objects in their line of work and the protective gloves being worn were damaged at the level of the aforementioned fingers. An MRI of the cervical spine revealed pain in the C3–C4 zygapophyseal joints.

Case 2

A senior patient with deep pain in specific areas of the leg and the calf of the right lower limb, experiencing tingling in the ankle and outer section of the foot.

A clinical assessment revealed signs of tactile sensitivity deficit and stinging in the area in which the patient felt tingling (that is in the dermatome of the 5th lumbar root). A further MRI check revealed a intraforaminal disc herniation (right-sided). A sensitivity assessment can prove to be essential, while pain distribution is only indicative. It is always necessary to consider that for each spinal root there is a dermatome in which superficial sensitivities should be evaluated and a different territory of deep pain.

Conclusions

This algorithm, developed by the Italian Society of General Medicine (SIMG), is currently offered as a part of Continuing Medical Education for GPs in Italy. The goal is to provide primary care physicians with the diagnostic skills needed to manage patients presenting in general practice with chronic pain or refer them to specialty care when appropriate. The accompanying article in this issue provides information and rationale to support treatment decisions based on type of pain and patient characteristics identified here.

References

  1. Romanelli RJ, Shah SN, Ikeda L, et al. Patient characteristics and healthcare utilization of a chronic pain population within an integrated healthcare system. Am J Manag Care. 2017;23(2):e50–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hansen AB, Skurtveit S, Borchgrevink PC, et al. Consumption of and satisfaction with health care among opioid users with chronic non-malignant pain. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59(10):1355–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Roy É, Côté RJ, Hamel D, et al. Opioid prescribing practices and training needs of Québec family physicians for chronic noncancer pain. Pain Res Manag. 2017;2017:1365910.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Rorke JE, Chen I, Genao I, Panda M, Cykert S. Physicians’ comfort in caring for patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. Am J Med Sci. 2007;333(2):93–100.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Harris JM Jr, Elliott TE, Davis BE, Chabal C, Fulginiti JV, Fine PG. Educating generalist physicians about chronic pain: live experts and online education can provide durable benefits. Pain Med. 2008;9(5):555–63.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chelimsky TC, Fischer RL, Levin JB, Cheren MI, Marsh SK, Janata JW. The primary practice physician program for chronic pain (© 4PCP): outcomes of a primary physician-pain specialist collaboration for community-based training and support. Clin J Pain. 2013;29(12):1036–43.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, Finnerup NB, Flor H, Gibson S, et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain United States. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Treede R-D, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, et al. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Pain. 2015;156:1003–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Treede R-D, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, et al. Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP Classification of Chronic Pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Pain United States. 2019;160:19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nicholas M, Vlaeyen JWS, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Benoliel R, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic primary pain. Pain United States. 2019;160:28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bennett MI, Kaasa S, Barke A, Korwisi B, Rief W, Treede R-D. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic cancer-related pain. Pain United States. 2019;160:38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schug SA, Lavandʼhomme P, Barke A, Korwisi B, Rief W, Treede R-D. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain. Pain United States. 2019;160:45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Scholz J, Finnerup NB, Attal N, Aziz Q, Baron R, Bennett MI, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic neuropathic pain. Pain. 2019;160:53–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Benoliel R, Svensson P, Evers S, Wang S-J, Barke A, Korwisi B, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic secondary headache or orofacial pain. Pain United States. 2019;160:60–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Aziz Q, Giamberardino MA, Barke A, Korwisi B, Baranowski AP, Wesselmann U, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic secondary visceral pain. Pain United States. 2019;160:69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Perrot S, Cohen M, Barke A, Korwisi B, Rief W, Treede R-D. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Pain United States. 2019;160:77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenbloom BN, Khan S, McCartney C, Katz J. Systematic review of persistent pain and psychological outcomes following traumatic musculoskeletal injury. J Pain Res. 2013;6:39–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Klinar I, Ferhatovic L, Banozic A, et al. Physicians’ attitudes about interprofessional treatment of chronic pain: family physicians are considered the most important collaborators. Scand J Caring Sci. 2013;27(2):303–10.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bonezzi C, Fornasari D, Cricelli C, Magni A, Ventriglia G. Pharmacological management of adults with chronic non-cancer pain in general practice. Pain Ther. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-020-00218-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Verhaak PF, Kerssens JJ, Dekker J, Sorbi MJ, Bensing JM. Prevalence of chronic benign pain disorder among adults: a review of the literature. Pain. 1998;77(3):231–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Blyth FM, March LM, Brnabic AJ, Jorm LR, Williamson M, Cousins MJ. Chronic pain in Australia: a prevalence study. Pain. 2001;89(2–3):127–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reid KJ, Harker J, Bala MM, Truyers C, Kellen E, Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J. Epidemiology of chronic non-cancer pain in Europe: narrative review of prevalence, pain treatments and pain impact. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(2):449–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Steingrímsdóttir ÓA, Landmark T, Macfarlane GJ, Nielsen CS. Defining chronic pain in epidemiological studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2017;158(11):2092–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rahim-Williams B, Riley JL 3rd, Williams AK, Fillingim RB. A quantitative review of ethnic group differences in experimental pain response: do biology, psychology, and culture matter? Pain Med. 2012;13(4):522–40.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gureje O, Von Korff M, Simon GE, Gater R. Persistent pain and well-being: a World Health Organization Study in Primary Care. JAMA. 1998;280(2):147–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jackson T, Thomas S, Stabile V, Shotwell M, Han X, McQueen K. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the global burden of chronic pain without clear etiology in low- and middle-income countries: trends in heterogeneous data and a proposal for new assessment methods. Anesth Analg. 2016;123(3):739–48.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fayaz A, Croft P, Langford RM, Donaldson LJ, Jones GT. Prevalence of chronic pain in the UK: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population studies. BMJ Open. 2016;6(6):e010364.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Inoue S, Kobayashi F, Nishihara M, et al. Chronic pain in the Japanese community-prevalence, characteristics and impact on quality of life. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129262.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dahlhamer J, Lucas J, Zelaya C, et al. Prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain among adults—United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(36):1001–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bouhassira D, Lanteri-Minet M, Attal N, Laurent B, Touboul C. Prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics in the general population. Pain. 2008;136(3):380–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Koleva D, Krulichova I, Bertolini G, Caimi V, Garattini L. Pain in primary care: an Italian survey. Eur J Public Health. 2005;15(5):475–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Piccoliori G, Pavone P, Turbil E, et al. Italian pain Research: [Preliminary data from an observational study in General Medicine]. 23rd National Congress of the Italian Society of General Medicine (SIMG). Florence, November 23–25. 2006. [Italian]

  33. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(4):287–333.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Del Giorno R, Frumento P, Varrassi G, Paladini A, Coaccioli S. Assessment of chronic pain and access to pain therapy: a cross-sectional population-based study. J Pain Res. 2017;10:2577–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Alonso J, Ferrer M, Gandek B, IQOLA Project Group, et al. Health-related quality of life associated with chronic conditions in eight countries: results from the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):283–98.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bernfort L, Gerdle B, Rahmqvist M, Husberg M, Levin LÅ. Severity of chronic pain in an elderly population in Sweden–impact on costs and quality of life. Pain. 2015;156(3):521–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kawai K, Kawai AT, Wollan P, Yawn BP. Adverse impacts of chronic pain on health-related quality of life, work productivity, depression and anxiety in a community-based study. Fam Pract. 2017;34(6):656–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kroenke K, Outcalt S, Krebs E, et al. Association between anxiety, health-related quality of life and functional impairment in primary care patients with chronic pain. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(4):359–65.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Blyth FM, March LM, Brnabic AJ, Cousins MJ. Chronic pain and frequent use of health care. Pain. 2004;111(1–2):51–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Eriksen J, Sjøgren P, Ekholm O, Rasmussen NK. Health care utilisation among individuals reporting long-term pain: an epidemiological study based on Danish National Health Surveys. Eur J Pain. 2004;8(6):517–23.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. van Leeuwen MT, Blyth FM, March LM, Nicholas MK, Cousins MJ. Chronic pain and reduced work effectiveness: the hidden cost to Australian employers. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(2):161–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McDonald M, DiBonaventura M, Ullman S. Musculoskeletal pain in the workforce: the effects of back, arthritis, and fibromyalgia pain on quality of life and work productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(7):765–70.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gaskin DJ, Richard P. The economic costs of pain in the United States. J Pain. 2012;13(8):715–24.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Henschke N, Kamper SJ, Maher CG. The epidemiology and economic consequences of pain. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90(1):139–47.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Piccoliori G, Engl A, Gatterer D, Sessa E, der Schmitten J, Abholz HH. Management of low back pain in general practice—is it of acceptable quality: an observational study among 25 general practices in South Tyrol (Italy). BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:148.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Payne R. Limitations of NSAIDs for pain management: toxicity or lack of efficacy? J Pain. 2000;1(3 Suppl):14–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Jalan R, Williams R, Bernuau J. Paracetamol: are therapeutic doses entirely safe? Lancet. 2006;368:2195–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Apolone G, Corli O, Caraceni A, et al. Pattern and quality of care of cancer pain management. Results from the Cancer Pain Outcome Research Study Group. Br J Cancer. 2009;100(10):1566–74.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Andersson HI, Ejlertsson G, Leden I, Rosenberg C. Chronic pain in a geographically defined general population: studies of differences in age, gender, social class, and pain localization. Clin J Pain. 1993;9(3):174–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lora Aprile P, Cancian M, Apolone G, Bonezzi C. Società Italiana di Medicina Generale. Documento di indirizzo SIMG sull’assistenza al paziente con dolore cronico non oncologico in Medicina Generale [Italian]. https://www.simg.it/documenti/aree_cliniche/Osteoarticolare/DCNO-definitivo.pdf.

  51. Italian Health Ministry. Il dolore cronico in Medicina Generale. 2013 [Italian]. https://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_2076_allegato.pdf.

  52. DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo T. What is the source of chronic low back pain and does age play a role? Pain Med. 2011;12:224–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. International Association for the study of Pain. IASP Terminology—IASP [Internet]. https://www.iasp-pain.org/terminology?. Accessed 4 Oct 2020.

  54. Mickle AD, Shepherd AJ, Mohapatra DP. Sensory TRP channels: the key transducers of nociception and pain. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2015;131:73–118.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Treede RD, Jensen TS, Campbell JN, et al. Neuropathic pain: redefinition and a grading system for clinical and research purposes. Neurology. 2008;70(18):1630–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mick G, Baron R, Finnerup NB, Hans G, Kern KU, Brett B, Dworkin RH. What is localized neuropathic pain? A first proposal to characterize and define a widely used term. Pain Manag. 2012;2(1):71–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Smith BH, Torrance N. Epidemiology of neuropathic pain and its impact on quality of life. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2012;16(3):191–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Langley PC, Van Litsenburg C, Cappelleri JC, Carroll D. The burden associated with neuropathic pain in Western Europe. J Med Econ. 2013;16(1):85–95.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, et al. Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(2):162–73.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Baron R, Maier C, Attal N, et al. Peripheral neuropathic pain: a mechanism-related organizing principle based on sensory profiles. Pain. 2017;158(2):261–72.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Buono N, Thulesius H, Petrazzuoli F, Castelli E, Cambielli M. Postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy, and trigeminal neuralgia—chronic peripheral neuropathic pain in 58,480 rural Italian primary care patients. J Family Med Prim Care. 2017;6(1):110–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Torrance N, Smith BH, Bennett MI, Lee AJ. The epidemiology of chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin. Results from a general population survey. J Pain. 2006;7(4):281–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. van Hecke O, Austin SK, Khan RA, Smith BH, Torrance N. Neuropathic pain in the general population: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Pain. 2014;155(4):654–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Moulin D, Boulanger A, Clark AJ, Canadian Pain Society, et al. Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain: revised consensus statement from the Canadian Pain Society. Pain Res Manag. 2014;19(6):328–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. 2011;152:S2-15.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mayer TG, Neblett R, Cohen H, Howard KJ, Choi YH, Williams MJ, et al. The development and psychometric validation of the central sensitization inventory. Pain Pract. 2012;12:276–85.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Häuser W, Perrot S, Sommer C, Shir Y, Fitzcharles M-A. Diagnostic confounders of chronic widespread pain: not always fibromyalgia. Pain Rep. 2017;2:e598.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Baron R, Perrot S, Guillemin I, Alegre C, Dias-Barbosa C, Choy E, et al. Improving the primary care physicians’ decision making for fibromyalgia in clinical practice: development and validation of the Fibromyalgia Detection (FibroDetect®) screening tool. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:128.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bouhassira D, Attal N. Diagnosis and assessment of neuropathic pain: the saga of clinical tools. Pain. 2011;152(3 Suppl):S74-83.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Erdemoglu AK, Koc R. Brief Pain Inventory score identifying and discriminating neuropathic and nociceptive pain. Acta Neurol Scand. 2013;128(5):351–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Cappelleri JC, Koduru V, Bienen EJ, Sadosky A. Characterizing neuropathic pain profiles: enriching interpretation of painDETECT. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2016;7:93–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Bennett MI, Smith BH, Torrance N, Potter J. The S-LANSS score for identifying pain of predominantly neuropathic origin: validation for use in clinical and postal research. J Pain. 2005;6(3):149–58.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Bouhassira D, Attal N, Alchaar H, et al. Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4). Pain. 2005;114(1–2):29–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Diagnostic methods for neuropathic pain: a review of diagnostic accuracy [Internet]. Ottawa, Ontario; 2015. Conclusions and implications for decision or policy making. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304866/.

  75. Mathieson S, Maher CG, Terwee CB, Folly de Campos T, Lin CW. Neuropathic pain screening questionnaires have limited measurement properties. A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(8):957–66.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Davis MP. Cancer-related neuropathic pain: review and selective topics. Hematol Oncol Clin N Am. 2018;32(3):417–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Freynhagen R, Arevalo Parada H, Calderon-Ospina CA, et al. Current understanding of the mixed pain concept: a brief narrative review. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;27:1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Nijs J, Apeldoorn A, Hallegraeff H, et al. Low back pain: guidelines for the clinical classification of predominant neuropathic, nociceptive, or central sensitization pain. Pain Physician. 2015;18(3):E333–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding

Sponsorship for the Rapid Service Fee was funded by Alfasigma, Italy.

Editorial Assistance

Editorial assistance in the preparation of this article was provided by Richard Vernell, an independent medical writer, on behalf of Springer Healthcare, Italy. This support was funded by Alfasigma, Italy.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Disclosures

Diego Fornasari declared relationships during the past 2 years as conference speaker, member of advisory boards or consultants for the following companies: Abiogen, Alfasigma, Astellas, Bayer, Grünenthal, Indena, Molteni, Scharper, SPA, Zambon. Alberto Magni declares relationships with Angelini, Alfasigma, Ibsa Farmaceutici, Grünenthal, and Pfizer. Cesare Bonezzi, Claudio Cricelli, and Giuseppe Ventriglia have nothing to disclose.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICS Maugeri IRCCS, Via Salvatore Maugeri 10, Pavia, Italy

    Cesare Bonezzi

  2. Department of Medical Biotechnology and Translational Medicine, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Vanvitelli 32, Milan, Italy

    Diego Fornasari

  3. SIMG (Italian College of General Practitioners and Primary Care), Via Del Sansovino 179, Florence, Italy

    Claudio Cricelli, Alberto Magni & Giuseppe Ventriglia

Authors
  1. Cesare Bonezzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diego Fornasari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claudio Cricelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alberto Magni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giuseppe Ventriglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cesare Bonezzi.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonezzi, C., Fornasari, D., Cricelli, C. et al. Not All Pain is Created Equal: Basic Definitions and Diagnostic Work-Up. Pain Ther 9, 1–15 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-020-00217-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-020-00217-w

Keywords

  • Chronic pain
  • Diagnosis
  • Primary care