The DOI matches its Crossref record.
IASP Diagnostic Criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Preliminary Empirical Validation Study
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of the International Association for the Study of Pain Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) diagnostic criteria and associated features to discriminate between CRPS patients and patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. DESIGN: Prospective assessment of signs and symptoms in a series of CRPS and diabetic neuropathy patients. SETTING: University of Washington Multidisciplinary Pain Center. PATIENTS: A consecutive series of 18 CRPS patients and 30 diabetic neuropathy patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients completed a 10-item patient history questionnaire assessing symptoms of CRPS prior to medical evaluation. The evaluating physician completed a 10-item patient examination questionnaire assessing objective signs of CRPS. OUTCOME MEASURES: The analyses conducted were designed to test the ability of CRPS signs and symptoms and associated features to discriminate between CRPS patients and diabetic neuropathy patients. RESULTS: Data analysis suggested that CRPS decision rules may lead to overdiagnosis of the disorder. Diagnosis based on self-reported symptoms can be diagnostically useful in some circumstances. The addition of trophic tissue changes, range of motion changes, and "burning" quality of pain did not improve diagnostic accuracy, but the addition of motor neglect signs did. Test of a CRPS scoring system resulted in improved accuracy relative to current criteria and decision rules. CONCLUSIONS: Poorly understood disorders lacking prototypical signs/symptoms and diagnostic laboratory testing must rely on the development of reliable diagnostic guidelines. The results of this study should assist in the further refinement of the CRPS diagnostic criteria.
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
Cited by
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-citationBruehl, S., Harden, N. R., Galer, B. S., Saltz, S., Bertram, M., Backonja, M., Gayles, R., Rudin, N., Bhugra, M. K., & Stanton-Hicks, M. (1999) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00011-1 · Cited by 622
Self-citationComplex Regional Pain Syndrome: Practical Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines, 4th Edition
Harden, R. N., Oaklander, A. L., Burton, A. W., Perez, R. S. G. M., Richardson, K., Swan, M., Barthel, J., Costa, B., Graciosa, J. R., & Bruehl, S. (2013) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1111/pme.12033 · Cited by 534
Self-citationA randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of cannabis cigarettes in neuropathic pain
Wilsey, B., Marcotte, T., Tsodikov, A., Millman, J., Bentley, H., Gouaux, B., & Fishman, S. (2008) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.12.010 · Cited by 327
Vascular abnormalities in reflex sympathetic dystrophy (CRPS I): mechanisms and diagnostic value
Wasner, G., Schattschneider, J., Heckmann, K., Maier, C., & Baron, R. (2001) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/124.3.587 · Cited by 326
Metadata
- Authors
- Galer, B. S., Bruehl, S., & Harden, R. N.
- Venue
- The Clinical Journal of Pain
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 48-54
- ISSN
- 0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W59036416
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.46
- 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: IASP Diagnostic Criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Preliminary Empirical Validation Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00002508-199803000-00007
- The paper
- Galer, B. S., Bruehl, S., & Harden, R. N. (1998). IASP Diagnostic Criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Preliminary Empirical Validation Study. The Clinical Journal of Pain. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-199803000-00007
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.