• Toby N Weingarten, James C Watson, W Michael Hooten, Peter C Wollan, L Joseph Melton, Adam J Locketz, Gilbert Y Wong, and Barbara P Yawn.
• Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesia, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. weingarten.toby@mayo.edu
• Pain. 2007 Nov 1;132(1-2):189-94.

AbstractThe Self-Administered Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS), an assessment tool to determine if pain is predominantly neuropathic, has not been validated in a community setting. Previously identified residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, with chronic pain were recruited using a stratified randomization process to increase the frequency of neuropathic pain in the study sample. Subjects completed the S-LANSS in mailed and telephone formats, and underwent clinical assessment to determine if a component of their pain was neuropathic. Sensitivity and specificity of the S-LANSS as compared to the clinical assessment were determined. Two hundred and five subjects participated in the study. Eighty-three subjects (40%) had a positive S-LANSS score in the mailed, as did 59 of 173 (34%) in the telephone format, with little inter-subject difference in scores (p=0.57). Clinical assessment identified a component of neuropathic pain in 37% of the sample (75/205). Compared to clinical assessment, sensitivity and specificity in the mailed S-LANSS were 57% (95% CI, 46-69%) and 69% (95% CI, 61-77%), respectively, and in the telephone S-LANSS were 52% (95% CI, 39-64%) and 78% (95% CI, 68-85%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the S-LANSS in both formats were lower than the initial S-LANSS validation study. Differences in survey format and subject population could account for these differences, suggesting that the S-LANSS is best suited as a screening tool and its use to determine the prevalence of neuropathic pain in population studies should be viewed cautiously.

23 keywords...

hide…