CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 137Pain Management and TreatmentPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsAnesthesia and Pain Management

The Outcome of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1: A Systematic Review

Open access
Bean, Debbie J., Johnson, Malcolm H., Kydd, Robert R.·2014·The Journal of Pain
DOI 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.01.500
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Unlabelled The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the outcome of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type 1. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant studies and included 18 studies, with 3,991 participants, in this review. The following data were extracted: study details, measurement tools used, and rates or severity scores for the symptoms/signs of CRPS at baseline and follow-up, or in groups of patients with different disease durations. A quality assessment revealed significant limitations in the literature, with many studies using different diagnostic criteria. The 3 prospective studies demonstrated that for many patients, symptoms improve markedly within 6 to 13 months of onset. The 12 retrospective studies had highly heterogeneous findings, documenting lasting impairments in many patients. The 3 cross-sectional studies showed that rates of pain and sensory symptoms were highest among those with the longest duration of CRPS. Additionally, most studies showed that motor symptoms (stiffness and weakness) were the most likely to persist whereas sudomotor and vasomotor symptoms were the most likely to improve. Overall, this suggests that some CRPS patients make a good early recovery whereas others develop lasting pain and disability. As yet little is known about the prognostic factors that might differentiate between these groups.Perspective We found evidence that many CRPS patients recover within 6 to 13 months, but a significant number experience some lasting symptoms, and some experience chronic pain and disability. The quality of the evidence was poor. Future research should examine the factors associated with recovery and identify those at risk of poor outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.01.500

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

2 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bean, D. J., Johnson, M. H., & Kydd, R. R.
Affiliations
University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Bean, Debbie J.
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
677-690
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jpain.2014.01.500
OpenAlex
W2033223451
Cited by
137
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, chronic pain, disability, disease duration, motor symptoms, sensory symptoms, prognosis, recovery
MeSH terms
Humans, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, Databases, Bibliographic

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