The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Practical Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines, 5th Edition
Open accessAbstract
There have been some modest recent advancements in the research of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, yet the amount and quality of the work in this complicated multifactorial disease remains low (with some notable exceptions; e.g., the recent work on the dorsal root ganglion stimulation). The semi-systematic (though in some cases narrative) approach to review is necessary so that we might treat our patients while waiting for “better research.” This semi-systematic review was conducted by experts in the field, (deliberately) some of whom are promising young researchers supplemented by the experience of “elder statesman” researchers, who all mention the system they have used to examine the literature. What we found is generally low- to medium-quality research with small numbers of subjects; however, there are some recent exceptions to this. The primary reason for this paucity of research is the fact that this is a rare disease, and it is very difficult to acquire a sufficient sample size for statistical significance using traditional statistical approaches. Several larger trials have failed, probably due to using the broad general diagnostic criteria (the “Budapest” criteria) in a multifactorial/multi-mechanism disease. Responsive subsets can often be identified in these larger trials, but not sufficient to achieve statistically significant results in the general diagnostic grouping. This being the case the authors have necessarily included data from less compelling protocols, including trials such as case series and even in some instances case reports/empirical information. In the humanitarian spirit of treating our often desperate patients with this rare syndrome, without great evidence, we must take what data we can find (as in this work) and tailor a treatment regime for each patient.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Finnerup, N. B., Attal, N., Haroutounian, S., McNicol, E., Baron, R., Dworkin, R. H., Gilron, I., Haanpää, M., Hansson, P., Jensen, T. S., et al. (2015) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(14)70251-0 · Cited by 3,980 · cited 3×
“This is unsurpassed by any other treatment for neuropathic pain; however it is worth noting that all of these previous trials have durations of only weeks to a few months, and in clinical practice many patients may eventually develop tolerance or tachyphylaxis to these drugs [128].”
BackgroundMethodCore outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., Brandenburg, N., Carr, D. B., Cleeland, C., Dionne, R., Farrar, J. T., Galer, B. S., et al. (2003) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2003.08.001 · Cited by 3,510 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) has concluded that physical functioning is a “core domain” in the assessment of pain treatment efficacy, second only to pain assessment [62, 63].”
BackgroundCrombez, G., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., Heuts, P. H. T. G., & Lysens, R. (1999) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00229-2 · Cited by 1,675
Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider
Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., Gargon, E., & Tugwell, P. (2012) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 · Cited by 1,661
Morley, S., Eccleston, C., & Williams, A. (1999) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00255-3 · Cited by 1,597
Harden, N. R., Bruehl, S., Perez, R. S. G. M., Birklein, F., Marinus, J., Maihofner, C., Lubenow, T., Buvanendran, A., Mackey, S., Graciosa, J., et al. (2010) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.030 · Cited by 1,324
Self-citationSynaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors
(1996) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0058 · Cited by 1,246
Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centers: a meta-analytic review.
Flor, H., Fydrich, T., & Turk, D. C. (1992) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(92)90145-2 · Cited by 1,227
Mindfulness Meditation for Chronic Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Hilton, L., Hempel, S., Ewing, B. A., Apaydin, E., Xenakis, L., Newberry, S., Colaiaco, B., Maher, A. R., Shanman, R. M., Sorbero, M. E., et al. (2017) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-016-9844-2 · Cited by 977
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review
Guzmán, J., Esmail, R., Karjalainen, K., Malmivaara, A., Irvin, E., & Bombardier, C. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7301.1511 · Cited by 941
Metadata
- Authors
- Harden, R. N., McCabe, C. S., Goebel, A., Massey, M., Suvar, T., Grieve, S., & Bruehl, S.
- Venue
- Pain Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-05-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- Supplement_1
- Pages
- S1-S53
- ISSN
- 1526-2375 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-4637
- OpenAlex
- W4226275346
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 30
- FWCI
- 48.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Practical Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines, 5th Edition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pm/pnac046
- The paper
- Harden, R. N., McCabe, C. S., Goebel, A., Massey, M., Suvar, T., Grieve, S., & Bruehl, S. (2022). Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Practical Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines, 5th Edition. Pain Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnac046
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.