4.4 Article

Field-testing of the ICHD-3 beta diagnostic criteria for classical trigeminal neuralgia

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 291-300

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102414542291

关键词

Trigeminal neuralgia; clinical characteristics; concomitant persistent pain; diagnostic criteria; sensory abnormalities; field-testing; persistent idiopathic facial pain; sensitivity and specificity

资金

  1. Capital Region of Denmark Global Excellence in Health prize
  2. Lundbeck Foundation [R118-A11531]
  3. Danish patient society Trigeminus Foreningen
  4. Convergence Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction We aimed to field-test the beta version of the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3 beta) diagnostic criteria for classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN). The proposed beta draft of the 11th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11 beta) is almost exclusively based on the ICHD-3 beta classification structure although slightly abbreviated. We compared sensitivity and specificity to ICHD-2 criteria, and evaluated the needs for revision. Methods Clinical characteristics were systematically and prospectively collected from 206 consecutive TN patients and from 37 consecutive patients with persistent idiopathic facial pain in a cross-sectional study design.Results: The specificity of ICHD-3 beta was similar to ICHD-2 (97.3% vs. 89.2%, p=0.248) and the sensitivity was unchanged (76.2% vs. 74.3%, p=0.134). The majority of false-negative diagnoses in TN patients were due to sensory abnormalities at clinical examination. With a proposed modified version of ICHD-3 beta it was possible to increase sensitivity to 96.1% (p<0.001 compared to ICHD-3 beta) while maintaining specificity at 83.8% (p=0.074 compared to ICHD-3 beta). Conclusion ICHD-3 beta was not significantly different from ICHD-2 and both lacked sensitivity. A modification of the criteria improved the sensitivity greatly and is proposed for inclusion in the forthcoming ICHD-3.

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