Nerve pathology and neuropathic pain after whiplash injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: There is no clear understanding of the mechanisms causing persistent pain in patients with whiplash-associated disorder (WAD). The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence for nerve pathology and neuropathic pain in patients with WAD. EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), and MEDLINE were searched from inception to September 1, 2020. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scales. Fifty-four studies reporting on 390,644 patients and 918 controls were included. Clinical questionnaires suggested symptoms of predominant neuropathic characteristic in 34% of patients (range 25%-75%). The mean prevalence of nerve pathology detected with neurological examination was 13% (0%-100%) and 32% (10%-100%) with electrodiagnostic testing. Patients independent of WAD severity (Quebec Task Force grades I-IV) demonstrated significantly impaired sensory detection thresholds of the index finger compared with controls, including mechanical (SMD 0.65 [0.30; 1.00] P < 0.005), current (SMD 0.82 [0.25; 1.39] P = 0.0165), cold (SMD -0.43 [-0.73; -0.13] P = 0.0204), and warm detection (SMD 0.84 [0.25; 1.42] P = 0.0200). Patients with WAD had significantly heightened nerve mechanosensitivity compared with controls on median nerve pressure pain thresholds (SMD -1.10 [-1.50; -0.70], P < 0.0001) and neurodynamic tests (SMD 1.68 [0.92; 2.44], P = 0.0004). Similar sensory dysfunction and nerve mechanosensitivity was seen in WAD grade II, which contradicts its traditional definition of absent nerve involvement. Our findings strongly suggest a subset of patients with WAD demonstrate signs of peripheral nerve pathology and neuropathic pain. Although there was heterogeneity among some studies, typical WAD classifications may need to be reconsidered and include detailed clinical assessments for nerve integrity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".