4.4 Article

Socio-demographic and clinical profile of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics in sub-Saharan African elderly

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 939-943

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00243.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Data on characteristics of neuropathic pain (NP) in sub-Saharan Africa are scarce, especially in the elderly. We conducted this study to appreciate the socio-demographic and clinical profile of chronic pain (CP) with neuropathic characteristics in sub-Saharan African elderly with musculoskeletal pain. From January to December 2011, we performed a cross-sectional study in all Rheumatology outpatients over 60 years at the Center for Gerontology and Geriatrics, Dakar, Senegal. In this study, we included patients who experienced musculoskeletal pain for 3 months or longer (CP) and with a DN4 score4 (NP). A complete clinical examination was performed to make the diagnosis of NP definite' or probable', and to identify the aetiologies of NP. During the study period, 698 outpatients were examined. There were 394 out of the 549 patients over 60 years who reported CP. Among them, 28 patients (7.1%) scored 4 on the DN4 questionnaire. Female patients, low educational attainment, manual professions, non-workers and diabetes were associated with NP (p<0.05). The symptoms described by patients with NP, often intricate, were lumboradiculalgia (n=9), cervico-brachial neuralgia (n=3), polyneuropathy (n=12) and mononeuropathy (n=6). The presumed aetiologies in patients with NP were: chronic spine diseases (n=14), painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (n=8), Sjogren's syndrome (n=1), tarsal tunnel syndrome in rheumatoid arthritis (n=1) and bone metastasis (n=1). No aetiology was identified among three patients. Chronic spine diseases associated with radiculopathies and diabetic neuropathy are the main causes of NP, well detected by DN4 questionnaire and clinical examination in Senegalese sub-Saharan African elderly.

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