Cited by 97Pain Management and TreatmentPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsAnesthesia and Pain Management

Extent of recovery in the first 12 months of complex regional pain syndrome type‐1: A prospective study

Bean, D.J., Johnson, M.H., Heiss‐Dunlop, W., Kydd, R.R.·2016·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

Background: The literature concerning the outcomes of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is contradictory, with some studies suggesting high rates of symptom resolution, whilst others demonstrate that CRPS symptoms can persist and lead to significant disability. The aim of the present study was to carefully document the extent of recovery from each of the signs and symptoms of CRPS. Methods: A sample of 59 patients with recently onset (<12 weeks) CRPS‐1 were followed prospectively for 1 year, during which time they received treatment‐as‐usual. At baseline, 6 and 12 months, the following were measured: CRPS severity scores (symptoms and signs of CRPS), pain, disability, work status and psychological functioning. Results: Analyses showed that rates of almost all signs and symptoms of CRPS reduced significantly over 1 year. Reductions in symptom severity were clinically relevant and were greatest in the first 6 months and plateaued thereafter. However, at 1 year, nearly 2/3 of patients continued to meet the IASP‐Orlando criteria for CRPS and 1/4 met the Budapest research criteria for CRPS. Only 5.4% of patients were symptom‐free at 12 months. Conclusions: Overall the results were less optimistic than several previously conducted prospective studies and suggest that few cases of CRPS resolve completely within 12 months of onset. Improvements were generally greater in the first 6 months, and suggest that it may be worth exploring early interventions to prevent long‐term disability in CRPS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejp.813

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bean, D. J., Johnson, M. H., Heiss‐Dunlop, W., & Kydd, R. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Auckland Regional Plastic Reconstructive and Hand Surgery Service Counties Manukau District Health Board New Zealand
Corresponding author
Bean, D.J.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-11-02
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
884-894
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2169024765
Cited by
97
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
7.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Oakley Mental Health Research Foundation, Auckland, New Zealand
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
complex regional pain syndrome type I, symptom resolution, disability, employment status, psychological functioning, Budapest criteria, long-term outcomes, early intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Prospective Studies, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review