Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: The results of ecological coding

Antonia Barke, Beatrice Korwisi, Hans Raimund Casser, Egil A. Fors, Christian Geber, Stephan A. Schug, Audun Stubhaug, Takahiro Ushida, Thomas Wetterling, Winfried Rief, Rolf Detlef Treede

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed. Methods: Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation. Results: The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0. Conclusions: The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1239
JournalBMC Public Health
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Nov 2018

Fingerprint

Chronic Pain
Pain Clinics
Musculoskeletal Pain
Advisory Committees

Cite this

Barke, Antonia ; Korwisi, Beatrice ; Casser, Hans Raimund ; Fors, Egil A. ; Geber, Christian ; Schug, Stephan A. ; Stubhaug, Audun ; Ushida, Takahiro ; Wetterling, Thomas ; Rief, Winfried ; Treede, Rolf Detlef. / Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11 : The results of ecological coding. In: BMC Public Health. 2018 ; Vol. 18, No. 1.
@article{bdc6e11aefd5456093e8d8292814e14d,
title = "Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: The results of ecological coding",
abstract = "Background: A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed. Methods: Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation. Results: The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0{\%} had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97{\%} exhaustiveness), 20.1{\%} received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0{\%} of cases remained (98{\%} uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0. Conclusions: The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.",
keywords = "Chronic pain, Classification, Clinical utility, Diagnostic categories, Ecological coding, Field testing, ICD-11",
author = "Antonia Barke and Beatrice Korwisi and Casser, {Hans Raimund} and Fors, {Egil A.} and Christian Geber and Schug, {Stephan A.} and Audun Stubhaug and Takahiro Ushida and Thomas Wetterling and Winfried Rief and Treede, {Rolf Detlef}",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1186/s12889-018-6135-9",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
journal = "BMC Public Helath",
issn = "1471-2458",
publisher = "BMC Proceedings",
number = "1",

}

Barke, A, Korwisi, B, Casser, HR, Fors, EA, Geber, C, Schug, SA, Stubhaug, A, Ushida, T, Wetterling, T, Rief, W & Treede, RD 2018, 'Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: The results of ecological coding' BMC Public Health, vol. 18, no. 1, 1239. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6135-9

Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11 : The results of ecological coding. / Barke, Antonia; Korwisi, Beatrice; Casser, Hans Raimund; Fors, Egil A.; Geber, Christian; Schug, Stephan A.; Stubhaug, Audun; Ushida, Takahiro; Wetterling, Thomas; Rief, Winfried; Treede, Rolf Detlef.

In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1239, 07.11.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11

T2 - The results of ecological coding

AU - Barke, Antonia

AU - Korwisi, Beatrice

AU - Casser, Hans Raimund

AU - Fors, Egil A.

AU - Geber, Christian

AU - Schug, Stephan A.

AU - Stubhaug, Audun

AU - Ushida, Takahiro

AU - Wetterling, Thomas

AU - Rief, Winfried

AU - Treede, Rolf Detlef

PY - 2018/11/7

Y1 - 2018/11/7

N2 - Background: A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed. Methods: Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation. Results: The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0. Conclusions: The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.

AB - Background: A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed. Methods: Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation. Results: The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0. Conclusions: The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.

KW - Chronic pain

KW - Classification

KW - Clinical utility

KW - Diagnostic categories

KW - Ecological coding

KW - Field testing

KW - ICD-11

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056314580&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12889-018-6135-9

DO - 10.1186/s12889-018-6135-9

M3 - Article

VL - 18

JO - BMC Public Helath

JF - BMC Public Helath

SN - 1471-2458

IS - 1

M1 - 1239

ER -