Neuropathic Pain among Patients with Primary Knee Osteoarthritis: Results of a Cross-sectional Study from a Tertiary Care Center in Southern India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pain in knee osteoarthritis (OA) may have a neuropathic component.We used the Douleur Neuropathique in 4 questions (DN4) questionnaire to assess neuropathic pain in knee OA and to identify factors associated with neuropathic pain.Methods: A total of 161 patients with knee OA satisfying the American College of Rheumatology 1986 classification criteria for knee OA were prospectively studied.DN4 questionnaire was administered; a score of ≥4/10 was classified as diagnostic for neuropathic pain.The Indian version of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was used to assess pain, stiffness, and physical function.Factors associated with neuropathic pain were explored.Results: Mean age was 55.7 ± 8.8 years.The mean total Indian WOMAC was 75.07 ± 13.8 and WOMAC pain score was 16.1 ± 3.6.Seventy-nine patients of 161 (49%) had DN4 score ≥4 (neuropathic pain present).When diabetics were excluded (n = 58), the proportion of patients with DN4 score ≥4 reduced to 45.6%.The most frequently described pain characteristic was sensation of electric shock (58.4%).Mean total WOMAC and physical function subscale were significantly higher in neuropathic pain group when compared to the group without neuropathic pain (DN4 ≤3), 77.5 ± 11.5 versus 72.6 ± 15.5, P = 0.024 and 54.3 ± 8.8 and 49.8 ± 12.6, respectively, P = 0.008.Conclusions: Neuropathic pain (DN4 ≥4) was seen in up to 49% patients with knee OA.Centrally acting drugs such as tricyclic antidepressants or duloxetine can be used to improve the quality of life and physical function of knee OA patients with neuropathic pain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".