Classification Issues Related to Neuropathic Trigeminal Pain

The goal of a classification system of medical conditions is to facil-itate accurate communication, to ensure that each condition is described uniformly and universally and that all data banks for the storage and retrieval of research and clinical data related to the conditions are consistent. Classification entails deciding which kinds of diagnostic entities should be recognized and how to order them in a meaningful way. Currently there are 3 major pain classi-fication systems of relevance to orofacial pain: The International Association for the Study of Pain classification system, the International Headache Society classification system, and the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). All use different methodologies, and only the RDC/TMD take into account social and psychologic factors in the classification of conditions. Classification systems need to be reli-able, valid, comprehensive, generalizable, and flexible, and they need to be tested using consensus views of experts as well as the available literature. There is an urgent need for a robust classifica-tion system for neuropathic trigeminal pain.

classification; pain

1. Pfaffenrath V, Rath M, Pollmann W, Keeser W. Atypical facial pain—Application of the IHS criteria in a clinical sample. Cephalalgia 1993;13(suppl 12):84–88.

2. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioral Disorders. Geneva, Switzerland: Author, 1992.

3. Merskey H, Bogduk N (eds). Classification of chronic pain: Descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms, ed 2. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994:1–222.

4. Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. The International Classification of Headache Disorders, ed 2. Cephalalgia 2004;24(suppl 1):9–160.

5. Dworkin SF, LeResche L. Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord 1992;6:301–355.

6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR, ed 4, text revision. New York: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

7. Rudy TE, Turk DC, Zaki HS, Curtin HD. An empirical taxometric alternative to traditional classification of temporomandibular disorders. Pain 1989;36:311–320.

8. Turk DC. Strategies for classifying chronic orofacial pain patients. Anesth Prog 1990;37:155–160.

9. Turk DC, Rudy TE. Classification logic and strategies in chronic pain. In: Turk DC, Melzack R (eds). Handbook of Pain Assessment. New York: The Guilford Press, 1992: 409–428.

10. Woda A, Pionchon P. A unified concept of idiopathic orofacial pain: Clinical features. J Orofac Pain 1999;13: 172–184.

11. Woda A. What's new in the classification of idiopathic orofacial pain? Presented at Pain in Europe IV, the Euro-pean Federation of IASP Chapters Triennial Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, 2–6 Sept 2003.

12. Bennett G. Neuropathic pain in the orofacial region: Clinical and research challenges. J Orofac Pain 2004; 18:281–286.

13. Watson CPN. Management issues of neuropathic trigeminal pain from a medical perspective. J Orofac Pain 2004; 18:366–373.

14. Woolf CJ, Bennett GJ, Doherty M, et al. Towards a mechanism-based classification of pain? Pain 1998;77: 227–229.

15. Hansson P. Difficulties in stratifying neuropathic pain by mechanisms. Eur J Pain 2003;7(4):353–357.

16. McCleane G. 200 mg daily of lamotrigine has no analgesic effect in neuropathic pain: A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Pain 1999;83:105–107.

17. Hapak L, Gordon A, Locker D, Shandling M, Mock D, Tenenbaum HC. Differentiation between musculoligamentous, dentoalveolar, and neurologically based craniofacial pain with a diagnostic questionnaire. J Orofac Pain 1994; 8:357–368.

18. Burchiel KJ. A new classification for facial pain. Neuro-surgery 2003;53:1164–1166.

19. Turk DC, Rudy TE. The robustness of an empirically derived taxonomy of chronic pain patients. Pain 1990; 43:27–35.

20. Oken D. Multiaxial diagnosis and the psychosomatic model of disease. Psychosom Med 2000;62(2):171–175.

21. Ohrbach R, Sherman R. Temporomandibular disorders. In: Dworkin RH, Breitbart WS (eds). Psychosocial aspects of pain: Handbook for health care providers. Seattle: IASP Press, 2004.

22. Dworkin SF, Sherman J, Mancl L, Ohrbach R, LeResche L, Truelove E. Reliability, validity, and clinical utility of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders Axis II Scales: Depression, nonspecific physical symptoms, and graded chronic pain. J Orofac Pain 2002;16:207–220.

23. Emshoff R, Rudisch A. Validity of clinical diagnostic crite-ria for temporomandibular disorders: Clinical versus magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of temporomandibular joint internal derangement and osteoarthrosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91:50–55.

24. Ziglio E. The Delphi method and its contribution to decision making. In Adler M, Ziglio E (eds). Gazing into the Oracle. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1996:3–33.

25. Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1150–1156.

26. Barosi G, Ambrosetti A, Finelli C, et al. The Italian Con-sensus Conference on Diagnostic Criteria for Myelofibrosis with Myeloid Metaplasia. Br J Haematol 1999;104: 730–737.

27. McAlister FA, Straus SE, Sackett DL. Why we need large, simple studies of the clinical examination: The problem and a proposed solution. CARE-COAD1 group. Clinical Assessment of the Reliability of the Examination-Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease Group. Lancet 1999;354: 1721–1724.