Skip to main content

Table 5 Round 3 descriptive statistics

From: Clinical indicators to identify neuropathic pain in low back related leg pain: a modified Delphi study

Round 3 criteria for consensus include:

✓ Median value of participants Likert scale data ≥ 4

✓ IQR value of participants Likert scale data ≤ 1

✓ Percentage of agreement 70% (Wiangkham et al., 2016 [25])

Clinical indicator

Median

IQR

Percentage of agreement (%)

Consensus achieved

Ranking patient history indicators

Ranking clinical examination indicators

Pain variously described as burning, electric shock like and/or shooting into leg

5

1

100

Yes

2

 

Pain described as crawling or another unpleasant abnormal sensation (as a common example of dysesthesia)

4

1

90.3

Yes

4

 

History of nerve injury, pathology or mechanical compromise at the region of the nerve root/or other nervous tissue around the lumbar spine that can refer into the leg

5

1

96.7%

Yes

3

 

In a patient with low back related leg pain does the pre-existing knowledge of metabolic (e.g. diabetes, vitamin deficiencies), hormonal (e.g. thyroid), genetic (e.g. channelopathies), pharmacological (antimetabolities), chemical (e.g. chemotherapy) conditions

3

1

48.5%

No

7

 

Pain in association with other neurological symptoms (e.g. pins and needles, numbness, weakness)

5

1

100%

Yes

1

 

Pain of high severity and irritability (i.e. easily provoked, taking longer to settle)

4

2

64.5%

No

6

 

Reports of spontaneous pain (i.e. stimulus independent) and/or paroxysmal pain (i.e. sudden recurrences and intensification of pain)

4

1

71.1%

Yes

5

 

Pain/symptom provocation with mechanical/movement tests (e.g. Active/Passive, Neurodynamic, i.e. SLR, Brachial plexus tension test)

4

1

67.8%

No

 

3

Positive neurological signs (including altered reflexes, sensation and muscle power in dermatomal/myotomal or cutaneous nerve distribution)

5

1

90.4%

Yes

 

1

Allodynia and/or hyperpathia within the distribution of pain

4

1

74.2%

Yes

 

4

A loss of function of small fibre testing

4

1

77.4%

Yes

 

2