The Clinical journal of pain
-
Over the past 20 years, there have been numerous attempts to identify methodologies that are capable of the determination of sincerity of effort during muscle testing. The ensuing paper reviewed this literature and drew several conclusions. Injured patients and healthy volunteers do produce less force and more variable force while performing submaximal contractions than maximal contractions. ⋯ Many studies have questionable or at least unknown generalizability to patient samples and actual functional capacity. It is critical that other explanatory variables such as fear of injury, pain, medications, work satisfaction, and other motivational factors be considered. It is our opinion that there is not sufficient empirical evidence to support the clinical application of muscle testing to determine sincerity of effort.
-
Self-report plays a primary but not exclusive role in pain assessment. As is true of all self-reported experiences, under certain circumstances, the report of chronic pain can be distorted and misrepresented. ⋯ The current paper provides a rationale for the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) in the comprehensive assessment of chronic pain with an emphasis on the advantage the MMPI-2 provides in the detection of response bias or malingering. A critical review of available MMPI-2 validity scales is presented, and recommendations for use of these scales in the evaluation of patients with chronic pain are made.
-
Review Comparative Study
Is there a relationship between nonorganic physical findings (Waddell signs) and secondary gain/malingering?
This is a structured evidence based review of all available studies addressing the concept of nonorganic findings (Waddell signs) and their potential relationship to secondary gain and malingering. The objective of this review is to determine what evidence, if any, exists for a relationship between Waddell signs and secondary gain and malingering. Waddell signs are a group of 8 physical findings divided into 5 categories, the presence of which has been alleged at times to indicate the presence of secondary gain and malingering. ⋯ Overall, 75% of these reports reported no association between Waddell signs and the 4 possible methods of identifying patients with secondary gain and/or malingering. Based on the above results, it was concluded that there was little evidence for the claims of an association between Waddell signs and secondary gain and malingering. The preponderance of the evidence points to the opposite: no association.
-
To provide insights into the mechanisms underlying central hypersensitivity, review the evidence on central hypersensitivity in chronic pain after whiplash injury, highlight reflections on the clinical relevance of central hypersensitivity, and offer a perspective of treatment of central hypersensitivity. ⋯ Central hypersensitivity may explain exaggerated pain in the presence of minimal nociceptive input arising from minimally damaged tissues. This could account for pain and disability in the absence of objective signs of tissue damage in patients with whiplash. Central hypersensitivity may provide a common neurobiological framework for the integration of peripheral and supraspinal mechanisms in the pathophysiology of chronic pain after whiplash. Therapy studies are needed.
-
This paper provides a philosophical, historical, and clinical analysis of exaggerated pain behavior, focusing on the nature of the standards used to judge behavior as exaggerated. Malingering is understood as a special case of exaggerated pain behavior. Drawing upon the work of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and psychiatrist-anthropologist Horacio Fabrega, I argue that these standards are primarily moral rather than scientific in nature. ⋯ The highly variable relation between clinical pain and tissue damage, as well as the common problem of medically unexplained physical symptoms in primary care, pose serious challenges to this strategy of illness behavior validation. It will remain necessary to triage suffering presented to health care providers into that which should be addressed in the medical setting and that which is better addressed elsewhere. But we need to discard pseudoscientific reliance on medical tests and develop new standards that are openly acknowledged to be moral and social in nature.