MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404851535 · doi:10.1097/bcr.0000000000000321

Somatosensory Rehabilitation for Neuropathic Pain in Burn Survivors

2015· article· en· W2404851535 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bernadette Nedelec, Valérie Calva, Annick Chouinard, M Couture, Élisabeth Godbout, Ana de Oliveira, Léo LaSalle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoesthesiaMedicineNeuropathic painAllodyniaSomatosensory systemRehabilitationAnesthesiaVisual analogue scalePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyNociceptionHyperalgesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuropathic pain is an enormous rehabilitation challenge that has a substantial negative effect on patient function and quality of life. Somatosensory rehabilitation is a novel, nonpharmacological intervention described by Spicher based on the neuroplasticity of the somatosensory system. The rationale for somatosensory rehabilitation is that treating hypoesthesia will decrease neuropathic pain. Particularly for those with established neuropathic pain, the hypoesthesia may be masked by mechanical allodynia, which must be treated before treating the underlying hyposensitive zone. This case series describes the outcome of 17 burn survivors treated with somatosensory rehabilitation for their neuropathic pain. Before initiating treatment a modified version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (Questionnaire de la douleur St. Antoine, QDSA) was completed with the patients. The total score (×/64) was converted to percentage. The mechanical allodynia was assessed with the Rainbow Pain Scale that uses touch with the 15-g Semmes Weinstein Monofilaments (SWMs) and that was rated as painful on the visual analog scale (3/10 or resting pain + 1/10), as the criteria for mechanical allodynia. The severity level was assessed using seven predetermined SWMs to identify the smallest that elicited pain. The treatment consisted of avoiding all touch in the allodynic zone while concurrently providing proximal sensory and vibratory counter stimulation. Once the mechanical allodynia was eliminated, the underlying hypoesthesia was treated. Hypoesthesia was evaluated with the SWMs, and the percent improvement from baseline was calculated. The sensory reeducation treatment for hypoesthesia consisted of touch discrimination, texture perception, and vibratory stimulation. Seventeen patients (71/29% male/female, 21 ± 25% TBSA burned, 486 ± 596 days postburn) were evaluated and treated. Of these 15 initially presented with mechanical allodynia. The SWM scores had improved by 27 ± 21% (n = 14) and 29 ± 26% (n = 12) at 2 and 3 months posttreatment, respectively. The QDSA scores had improved by 9 ± 14% (n = 8) and 23 ± 23% (n = 6) at 2 and 3 months posttreatment, respectively. There were two patients who initially presented with hypoesthesia and six who had their zone of hypoesthesia treated after the mechanical allodynia had resolved. For these eight patients, their ability to perceive light touch improved by 27 ± 17% (n = 8) and 35 ± 25% (n = 6) at 2 and 3 months postsensory reeducation treatment initiation, respectively. The QDSA improved by 9 and 50% for the two patients who initially presented with hypoesthesia. In this case series, the majority of patients (13/17 or 76%) showed substantial improvements after somatosensory rehabilitation suggesting this is a treatment approach that should be considered with burn survivors experiencing neuropathic pain. There is a need, however, for future controlled studies to further investigate this approach and to determine if there is a subpopulation of burn survivors that are more likely than others to benefit from this approach.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207