4.4 Article

International Consensus on Diagnostic Criteria and Clinical Considerations of Myofascial Trigger Points: A Delphi Study

期刊

PAIN MEDICINE
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 142-150

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnx207

关键词

Myofascial Pain; Trigger Point; Delphi; Consensus; Diagnosis; Referred Pain

资金

  1. David G Simons Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. There is no consensus on the essential diagnostic criteria for diagnosing a trigger point (TrP). In fact, a variety of diagnostic criteria are currently being used. Our aim was to conduct a Delphi panel to achieve an international consensus on the cluster of criteria needed for the TrP diagnosis to reach a consensus on the definition of active and latent TrPs and to clarify different clinical considerations about TrPs. Methods. Following international guidelines, an international three-round Delphi survey was conducted. Questions were created based on a systematic literature search of the diagnostic criteria for TrPs. Results. Sixty experts from 12 countries completed all rounds of the survey. A cluster of three diagnostic criteria was proposed as essential for the TrP diagnosis: a taut band, a hypersensitive spot, and referred pain. Eighty percent of the experts agreed that the referred pain elicited by a TrP can include different sensory sensations and not just pain, that is, pain spreading to a distant area, deep pain, dull ache, tingling, or burning pain. Eighty-four percent of the international experts consistently answered that the main clinical differences between active and latent TrPs are the reproduction of any of the symptoms experienced by a patient and the recognition of pain. No specific location of the pain referral area and TrP location should be expected. Conclusions. This Delphi panel has produced an expert-based standardized definition of a TrP with a discussion of the clinical components, including the definition of referred pain and the difference between active and latent TrPs, thereby providing a foundation for future research in MPS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据