Cited by 45Pain Management and TreatmentStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryNerve Injury and Rehabilitation

The Value of Interdisciplinary Pain Management in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I: A Prospective Outcome Study

Open access
Chelimsky, Thomas C.·2004·Pain Physician

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I is a symptom complex of severe, chronic limb pain, often associated with allodynia, vasomotor, and sudomotor changes. Optimal management of this condition is not well understood. The role of a traditional, comprehensive pain management program with long-term follow-up has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To define the benefit of the interdisciplinary approach in patients with CRPS type I. DESIGN: Prospective, case series, outcomes evaluation. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of CRPS type I entering the University Pain Center's intensive, outpatient pain management program were enrolled in an objective assessment study through the duration of the program, with a follow-up of 2 years. This program involved 4 weeks of interdisciplinary management comprised of 20 sessions of physical therapy, 20 sessions of occupational therapy, 12 sessions of water therapy, 20 sessions of group psychotherapy, stellate ganglion blocks, and drug therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Specific objective measurements of upper extremity function, sensation and strength over time, and functional status 2 years after program completion. RESULTS: Upper extremity weight tolerance increased dramatically by 29-pounds (p<0.05). Function improved, with a 35 inch-pound gain in BTE (Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment) extension (p<0.005) and a 50 inch-pound increase in flexion (p<0.02). Jebsen-Taylor multifunctional testing (fine and gross motor skills) normalized from 72 to 48 seconds (p<0.04). Stable anxiety levels despite increased patient effort implied improved pain tolerance. At the 2-year follow up, 75% of the patients were employed. CONCLUSION: Patients with CRPS type I may benefit from a 4-week outpatient pain management program emphasizing rehabilitation.

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 · 10.36076/ppj.2004/7/203

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • In general, it is common in CRPS interdisciplinary studies not to find much change in pain intensity, but rather in function.

    “In general, it is common in CRPS interdisciplinary studies not to find much change in pain intensity, but rather in function [6, 7].”

    From Symptom reduction and improved function in chronic CRPS type 1 after 12-week integrated, interdisciplinary therapy (2019) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Discussion reports no significant decrease in pain level while physical gains increased, supporting the pain-versus-function contrast. But this was a small study of 12 patients; it does not establish that this pattern is common across CRPS interdisciplinary studies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An interdisciplinary treatment is widely accepted for CRPS patient rehabilitation, but the content varies.

    “An interdisciplinary treatment is widely accepted for CRPS patient rehabilitation, but the content varies [5-7].”
  • In a previous prospective study of 12 CRPS type 1 patients, a 4-week interdisciplinary, multimodal pain management program resulted in significant improvements in upper extremity motor functioning, no significant decrease in pain intensity, no significant change in psychological variables, and positive patient rating for benefit.

    “Results showed significant improvements in upper extremity motor functioning, while decrease in pain intensity was not significant. There was likewise no significant change in psychological variables, but the patient rating for benefit was positive [6].”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 12 · Cited by 45

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Turk D, Melzack R. Handbook of pain as- sessment. Guilford Press, New York, 1992.
  2. Penzien DB: The pain locus of control scale. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annu- al Scientific Meeting of the American Pain Society. 1989; 68-72
  3. Suttenfield C. Fear of pain: A cognitive model for the development and mainte- nance of chronic pain behavior. Doctor- al Dissertation. George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 1995.

Authors
Chelimsky, T. C.
Affiliations
University Hospitals of Cleveland (US)
Corresponding author
Chelimsky, Thomas C.
Venue
Pain Physician
Published
2004-04-14
Volume
2;7
Issue
4;2
Pages
203-209
ISSN
  • 1533-3159 (ISSN-L)
  • 2150-1149
OpenAlex
W2149997524
Cited by
45
References
12
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain Physician (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Keywords
complex regional pain syndrome type I, multidisciplinary pain management, allodynia, stellate ganglion block, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, aquatic therapy, group therapy, upper limb function, pain tolerance, employment effects, long-term follow-up

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