Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 622

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

External validation of IASP diagnostic criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and proposed research diagnostic criteria

Bruehl, Stephen, Harden, Norman R., Galer, Bradley S., Saltz, Samuel, Bertram, Martin, Backonja, Miroslav, Gayles, Richard, Rudin, Nathan, Bhugra, Maninder K., Stanton-Hicks, Michael·1999·Pain

Abstract

Recent work in our research consortium has raised internal validity concerns regarding the current IASP criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), suggesting problems with inadequate sensitivity and specificity. The current study explored the external validity of these IASP criteria for CRPS. A standardized evaluation of signs and symptoms of CRPS was conducted by study physicians in 117 patients meeting IASP criteria for CRPS, and 43 patients experiencing neuropathic pain with established non-CRPS etiology (e.g. diabetic neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia). Multiple discriminant function analyses were used to test the ability of the IASP diagnostic criteria and decision rules, as well as proposed research modifications of these criteria, to discriminate between CRPS patients and those experiencing non-CRPS neuropathic pain. Current IASP criteria and decision rules (e.g. signs or symptoms of edema, or color changes or sweating changes satisfy criterion 3) discriminated significantly between groups (P < 0.001). However, although sensitivity was quite high (0.98), specificity was poor (0.36), and a positive diagnosis of CRPS was likely to be correct in as few as 40% of cases. Empirically-based research modifications to the criteria, which are more comprehensive and require presence of signs and symptoms, were also tested. These modified criteria were also able to discriminate significantly, between the CRPS and non-CRPS groups (P < 0.001). A decision rule, requiring at least two sign categories and four symptom categories to be positive optimized diagnostic efficiency, with a diagnosis of CRPS likely to be accurate in up to 84% of cases, and a diagnosis of non-CRPS neuropathic pain likely to be accurate in up to 88% of cases. These results indicate that the current IASP criteria for CRPS have inadequate specificity and are likely to lead to overdiagnosis. Proposed modifications to these criteria substantially improve their external validity and merit further evaluation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00011-1

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 622

Metadata

Authors
Bruehl, S., Harden, N. R., Galer, B. S., Saltz, S., Bertram, M., Backonja, M., Gayles, R., Rudin, N., Bhugra, M. K., & Stanton-Hicks, M.
Venue
Pain
Published
1999-05-01
Volume
81
Issue
1
Pages
147-154
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2118519935
Cited by
622
References
15
FWCI
13.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: External validation of IASP diagnostic criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and proposed research diagnostic criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00011-1
The paper
Bruehl, S., Harden, N. R., Galer, B. S., Saltz, S., Bertram, M., Backonja, M., Gayles, R., Rudin, N., Bhugra, M. K., & Stanton-Hicks, M. (1999). External validation of IASP diagnostic criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and proposed research diagnostic criteria. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00011-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.