The potential to classify low back pain as being characterised by dominant nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic mechanisms is a clinically relevant issue. Preliminary evidence suggests that these low back pain phenotypes might respond differently to treatments; however, more research must be done before making specific recommendations. Accordingly, the low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium was established as a group of 36 clinicians and researchers from 13 countries (five continents) and 29 institutions, to apply a modified Nominal Group Technique methodology to develop international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations to provide guidance for identifying the dominant pain phenotype in patients with low back pain, and potentially adapt pain management strategies. The BACPAP consortium\'s recommendations are also intended to provide direction for future clinical research by building on the established clinical criteria for neuropathic and nociplastic pain. The BACPAP consortium\'s consensus recommendations are a necessary early step in the process to determine if personalised pain medicine based on pain phenotypes is feasible for low back pain management. Therefore, these recommendations are not ready to be implemented in clinical practice until additional evidence is generated that is specific to these low back pain phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN) is the most common presenting side effect of chemotherapy. As a sensory based neuropathy, this condition can persist for a long time after cessation of chemotherapy and impact the quality of life of cancer survivors. Podiatrists in Australia have been managing people with CIPN related lower limb complications, however guidelines on management of CIPN do not exist. The aim of this study was to achieve consensus and agreement of Australian podiatrists on strategies to best manage people presenting with symptoms of CIPN.
METHODS: An online three-round modified Delphi survey of Australian podiatrists with expertise in CIPN was conducted in line with recommendations for conducting and reporting of Delphi studies (CREDES). Panellists responded to open-ended questions in Round 1, whereupon their responses were themed into statements and analysed for existing consensus. Statements not reaching consensus were returned during Round 2 to seek agreement from responders using a five-point Likert scale and to allow responders to make further comments. For a statement to reach consensus or agreement, 70% or more of panellists needed to make the same comment or agree or strongly agree with the same themed statement. Statements reaching 50 to 69% consensus or agreement were returned to panellists in Round 3 for them to consider their responses in the light of group outcomes.
RESULTS: Round one resulted in 229 comments from 21 of 26 podiatrists who agreed to participate. These comments were themed into 53 statements with 11 consensus statements accepted. Round 2 resulted in 22 statements reaching agreement, and 15 new statements being generated from 18 comments made by 17 respondents. Round 3 resulted in 11 statements reaching agreement. Outcomes were developed into a set of clinical recommendations for diagnosis and management of people presenting with CIPN. These recommendations provide guidance on 1) identifying common signs and symptoms of CIPN including sensory, motor and autonomic symptoms; 2) diagnosis and assessment of CIPN including neurological, motor and dermatological assessment modalities; and 3) best clinical practice and management strategies for CIPN identified by podiatrists including both podiatry and non-podiatry specific care.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in podiatry literature to develop expert-informed consensus-based recommendations for clinical presentation, diagnosis and assessment and management of people with CIPN. These recommendations aim to help guide podiatrists in the consistent care of people with CIPN.

Background: Most individuals affected by cancer who are treated with certain chemotherapies suffer of CIPN. Therefore, there is a high patient and provider interest in complementary non-pharmacological therapies, but its evidence base has not yet been clearly pointed out in the context of CIPN. Methods: The results of a scoping review overviewing the published clinical evidence on the application of complementary therapies for improving the complex CIPN symptomatology are synthesized with the recommendations of an expert consensus process aiming to draw attention to supportive strategies for CIPN. The scoping review, registered at PROSPERO 2020 (CRD 42020165851), followed the PRISMA-ScR and JBI guidelines. Relevant studies published in Pubmed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PEDro, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL between 2000 and 2021 were included. CASP was used to evaluate the methodologic quality of the studies. Results: Seventy-five studies with mixed study quality met the inclusion criteria. Manipulative therapies (including massage, reflexology, therapeutic touch), rhythmical embrocations, movement and mind-body therapies, acupuncture/acupressure, and TENS/Scrambler therapy were the most frequently analyzed in research and may be effective treatment options for CIPN. The expert panel approved 17 supportive interventions, most of them were phytotherapeutic interventions including external applications and cryotherapy, hydrotherapy, and tactile stimulation. More than two-thirds of the consented interventions were rated with moderate to high perceived clinical effectiveness in therapeutic use. Conclusions: The evidence of both the review and the expert panel supports a variety of complementary procedures regarding the supportive treatment of CIPN; however, the application on patients should be individually weighed in each case. Based on this meta-synthesis, interprofessional healthcare teams may open up a dialogue with patients interested in non-pharmacological treatment options to tailor complementary counselling and treatments to their needs.

Method: Use the PICO format to generate a series of questions, focusing on the specificity and sensitivity of the amyloidosis diagnostic test. PubMed searches were conducted in English and Spanish from July to August 2019. The level of evidence and recommendation are based on the GRADE system (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm). The recommendations are graded according to their direction (for or against) and strength (strong and weak). Finally, it is recommended to use GLIA tools to evaluate the obstacles and facilitators in implementation. Suggested explanation A strong suggestion indicates a high degree of trust in support or opposition to the intervention. When defining a strong recommendation, this guide uses the \"recommended\" language. The weaker recommendations indicate that the outcome of the intervention (favorable or unfavorable) is doubtful. In this case, if a weak recommendation is defined, the \"recommendation\" language is used. How to use these guidelines: Recommendations must be explained within the scope of special care in validated diagnostic studies conducted by specially trained doctors. It is not assumed to change the coexistence conditions of the disease process. Presumably, the attending physician has a high degree of suspicion of amyloidosis. It assumes that diagnostic research is conducted by well-trained doctors using a validated standardized method. This guide is intended for health care professionals and those involved in health care policies to help ensure that the necessary agreements have been reached to provide appropriate care. Summary of recommendations For patients with suspected amyloidosis, it is recommended: Measured value of creatinine be used as a preliminary assessment for the diagnosis of renal involvement in patients with suspected renal amyloidosis. 24-hour proteinuria be measured and characterized to diagnose renal involvement in patients with suspected renal amyloidosis. Immunohistochemical staining of skin biopsy for patients genetically diagnosed with ATTR, for early diagnosis of neuropathy. The signs or symptoms of these patients suggest the presence of fine fiber neuropathy. Skin biopsy and immunohistochemical staining for early diagnosis of neuropathy. These patients show signs or symptoms suggesting fine fiber neuropathy. Conduct nerve conduction studies on motor and sensory fibers to diagnose total fiber neuropathy in patients who are diagnosed or suspected of having amyloidosis. Test (Sudoscan) is recommended for the early diagnosis of peripheral autonomic neuropathy (even in asymptomatic patients) in patients with suspected autonomic neuropathy due to amyloidosis. Ewing\'s standard to measure heart rate variability to diagnose autonomic hypofunction in patients with autonomic neuropathy suspected of having amyloidosis. Measure orthostatic hypotension to diagnose early autonomic hypotension for patients with amyloidosis or systemic amyloidosis suspected of autonomic neuropathy. It is suggested: QST test to diagnose neuropathy early for patients genetically diagnosed with ATTR, if they show signs or symptoms suggesting fine fiber neuropathy Measure alkaline phosphatase to initially assess liver involvement in patients with amyloidosis.
Se generó un listado de preguntas con el formato PICO centradas en la especificidad y sensibilidad de las pruebas diagnósticas en amiloidosis. Se realizó la búsqueda en PubMed durante julio-agosto del 2019, en inglés y español. Los niveles de evidencia y los grados de recomendación se basan en el sistema GRADE (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm). Las recomendaciones se graduaron según su dirección (a favor o en contra) y según fuerza (fuertes y débiles). Las recomendaciones finales fueron evaluadas con la herramienta GLIA para barreras y facilitadores en la implementación de éstas.
Las recomendaciones fuertes indican alta confianza, ya sea a favor o en contra, de una intervención. En esta guía se utiliza el lenguaje \"se recomienda\" cuando se define una recomendación fuerte. Las recomendaciones débiles indican que los resultados para una intervención, favorable o desfavorable, son dudosos. En este caso, se utiliza el lenguaje \"se sugiere\", cuando se define una recomendación débil.
Cómo utilizar estas pautas: Las recomendaciones deben ser interpretadas en el contexto de la atención especializada, con estudios diagnósticos validados y realizados por médicos entrenados. Se asume que el médico tratante tiene alto nivel de sospecha de amiloidosis. No asume condiciones coexistentes que modifican el curso de la enfermedad. Asume que los estudios diagnósticos son realizados por médicos entrenados con métodos validados y estandarizados. Esta guía es relevante para los profesionales de la salud y los involucrados en las políticas sanitarias, para ayudar a asegurar que existan los acuerdos necesarios para brindar la atención adecuada. Resumen de recomendaciones En pacientes con sospecha de amiloidosis se recomienda: Medición de la creatinina como evaluación inicial para el diagnóstico del compromiso renal en el paciente con sospecha de amiloidosis renal. Medición y caracterización de la proteinuria de 24 hs para el diagnóstico de compromiso renal en pacientes con sospecha de amiloidosis renal. Biopsia de piel con tinción inmunohistoquímica para el diagnóstico precoz de neuropatía en pacientes con diagnóstico genético de ATTR, que presenten signos o síntomas sugestivos de neuropatía de fibra fina. Biopsia de piel con tinción inmunohistoquímica para el diagnóstico precoz de neuropatía en pacientes con sospecha de amiloidosis, que presenten signos o síntomas sugestivos de neuropatía de fibra fina. Estudios de conducción nerviosa evaluando fibras motoras y sensitivas para el diagnóstico de neuropatía de fibras gruesas en pacientes con diagnóstico o sospecha de amiloidosis. Prueba de QST para el diagnóstico precoz de neuropatía en pacientes con diagnóstico genético de ATTR, que presenten signos o síntomas sugestivos de neuropatía de fibras finas. Test de cuantificación sudorípara (Sudoscan) para diagnóstico precoz de neuropatía autonómica periférica (incluso en asintomáticos) en pacientes con sospecha de neuropatía autonómica por amiloidosis. Medición de la variabilidad de la frecuencia cardiaca con criterios de Ewing para el diagnóstico de disautonomía en pacientes con sospecha de neuropatía autonómica por amiloidosis. Medición de hipotensión ortostática con técnica adecuadamente estandarizada para el diagnóstico precoz de compromiso autonómico en el paciente con sospecha de neuropatía autonómica por amiloidosis o diagnóstico de amiloidosis sistémica Se sugiere: Prueba de QST para el diagnóstico precoz de neuropatía en pacientes con amiloidosis o sospecha de amiloidosis, que presenten signos o síntomas sugestivos de neuropatía de fibras finas. Medición de fosfatasa alcalina para evaluación inicial del compromiso hepático en el paciente con amiloidosis.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a serious clinical problem and challenging for oncologists. CIPN is often a persistent adverse consequence of certain chemotherapeutic agents and more cancer survivors will experience CIPN leading to chronic pain and worsening quality of life. However, the available and effective strategies for clinical treatment of CIPN are very limited. Oncologists are frequently obliged to decrease or stop neurotoxic anticancer drugs, with a possible deleterious impact on the oncological prognostic. The challenges faced by CIPN include further study on the pathological mechanism, dose threshold, incidence, risk factors and clinical characteristics of CIPN; lack of diagnostic criteria and tools of CIPN; lack of effective and standardized CIPN prevention and treatment programs. The current update of research results on these challenging issues of CIPN will provide more decision-making evidence for oncologists to diagnose and treat CIPN. Therefore, Committee of Neoplastic Supportive-Care of China Anti-Cancer Association and Cancer Clinical Chemotherapy Committee of China Anti-Cancer Association convenes some experts to summarize the recent literatures and discuss to reach the consensus about recommendations for the definition, pathophysiological mechanism, assessment, prevention, and treatment of CIPN.
化疗诱导的周围神经病变(CIPN)是常见且严重的临床问题，多呈剂量依赖型特征，越来越多的恶性肿瘤患者在化疗后经历CIPN，多数患者仅能部分恢复且症状长期持续，严重影响其生活质量。CIPN可用且有效的临床治疗策略非常有限，肿瘤专科医师经常被迫减少或停用诱发神经不良反应的化疗药物，然而减量或停用化疗药物可能会对患者预后产生不良影响。目前CIPN面临的挑战包括深入探索其病理机制、化疗药物剂量阈值、风险预测模型等，需要完善CIPN诊断标准和工具，优化有效规范的CIPN预防和治疗方案，并为临床诊断和治疗CIPN提供更多决策证据。为此，中国抗癌协会肿瘤支持治疗专业委员会和中国抗癌协会肿瘤临床化疗专业委员会组织专家对文献进行分析和讨论，形成化疗诱导的周围神经不良反应诊治中国专家共识(2022版)，以指导临床实践。.

A standardized guideline and scoring system should be used for the MR imaging diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy. The MR imaging-based Neuropathy Score Reporting and Data System (NS-RADS) is a newly devised classification system (in press in AJR) that can be used to communicate both type and severity of peripheral neuropathy in the light of clinical history and examination findings. The spectrum of neuropathic conditions and peripheral nerve disorders covered in this system includes nerve injury, entrapment, neoplasm, diffuse neuropathy, and post-interventional states. This classification system also describes the temporal MR imaging appearances of regional muscle denervation changes. This review article is based on the multicenter validation study pre-published in American journal of Roentgenology and discusses technical considerations of optimal MR imaging for peripheral nerve evaluation and discusses the NS-RADS classification and its severity scales with illustration of conditions that fall under each classification. The readers can gain knowledge of the NS-RADS classification system and learn to apply it in their practices for improved inter-disciplinary communications and timely patient management.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients treated with neurotoxic chemotherapy are at risk of developing neurological symptoms that can impact functional capacity and quality of life. However, there are no standardised pathways to assess and manage chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN). This study aimed to determine consensus on statements regarding a CIPN assessment and management clinical pathway.
METHODS: A CIPN clinical pathway (CIPN-path) was developed and reviewed by an expert multi-disciplinary panel and consumers. Agreement with 18 statements regarding four content themes (pretreatment review, screening and assessment, management and referral, and CIPN-path feasibility) were assessed by 70 Australian respondents (68 health professionals, 2 consumers), using a 2-stage Delphi survey process to reach consensus. Respondents rated statements using a 5-point Likert scale to determine the level of agreement, with consensus defined as ≥ 80% of respondents agreeing with each statement.
RESULTS: The consensus was reached for 14 of 18 items after stage 1 and all items after stage 2. Feedback was obtained for all items to refine the CIPN-path. There was an agreement on important characteristics of the CIPN-path, including pretreatment screening, regular patient-reported assessment, and a stepped-care approach to investigating and managing symptom burden. There was a lack of agreement on who should oversee CIPN assessment, which may differ according to the structure and resources of each site.
CONCLUSIONS: There was an overall agreement concerning the CIPN-path to assess and manage CIPN, which may be adapted accordingly to the resources of each clinic. The CIPN-path may assist teams across different health services in identifying CIPN symptoms, aiding decision-making, and reducing morbidity from CIPN.

Classification of musculoskeletal pain based on underlying pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain) is challenging. In the absence of a gold standard, verification of features that could aid in discrimination between these mechanisms in clinical practice and research depends on expert consensus. This Delphi expert consensus study aimed to: (1) identify features and assessment findings that are unique to a pain mechanism category or shared between no more than 2 categories and (2) develop a ranked list of candidate features that could potentially discriminate between pain mechanisms. A group of international experts were recruited based on their expertise in the field of pain. The Delphi process involved 2 rounds: round 1 assessed expert opinion on features that are unique to a pain mechanism category or shared between 2 (based on a 40% agreement threshold); and round 2 reviewed features that failed to reach consensus, evaluated additional features, and considered wording changes. Forty-nine international experts representing a wide range of disciplines participated. Consensus was reached for 196 of 292 features presented to the panel (clinical examination-134 features, quantitative sensory testing-34, imaging and diagnostic testing-14, and pain-type questionnaires-14). From the 196 features, consensus was reached for 76 features as unique to nociceptive (17), neuropathic (37), or nociplastic (22) pain mechanisms and 120 features as shared between pairs of pain mechanism categories (78 for neuropathic and nociplastic pain). This consensus study generated a list of potential candidate features that are likely to aid in discrimination between types of musculoskeletal pain.

BACKGROUND. A standardized guideline and scoring system would improve evaluation and reporting of peripheral neuropathy (PN) on MRI. OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to create and validate a neuropathy classification and grading system, which we named the Neuropathy Score Reporting and Data System (NS-RADS). METHODS. This retrospective study included 100 patients with nerve imaging studies and known clinical diagnoses. Experts crafted NS-RADS using mutually agreed-on qualitative criteria for the classification and grading of PN. Different classes were created to account for the spectrum of underlying pathologies: unremarkable (U), injury (I), neoplasia (N), entrapment (E), diffuse neuropathy (D), not otherwise specified (NOS), and postintervention state (PI). Subclasses were established to describe the severity or extent of the lesions. Validation testing was performed by 11 readers from 10 institutions with experience levels ranging from 3 to 18 years after residency. After initial reader training, cases were presented to readers who were blinded to the final clinical diagnoses. Interobserver agreement was assessed using correlation coefficients and the Conger kappa, and accuracy testing was performed. RESULTS. Final clinical diagnoses included normal (n = 5), nerve injury (n = 25), entrapment (n = 15), neoplasia (n = 33), diffuse neuropathy (n = 18), and persistent neuropathy after intervention (n = 4). The miscategorization rate for NS-RADS classes was 1.8%. Final diagnoses were correctly identified by readers in 71-88% of cases. Excellent inter-reader agreement was found on the NS-RADS pathology categorization (κ = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) as well as muscle pathology categorization (κ = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82). The accuracy for determining milder versus more severe categories per radiologist ranged from 88% to 97% for nerve lesions and from 86% to 94% for muscle abnormalities. CONCLUSION. The proposed NS-RADS classification is accurate and reliable across different reader experience levels and a spectrum of PN conditions. CLINICAL IMPACT. NS-RADS can be used as a standardized guideline for reporting PN and improved multidisciplinary communications.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) remains a significant toxicity in cancer survivors without preventative strategies or rehabilitation. Exercise and physical activity-based interventions have demonstrated promise in reducing existing CIPN symptoms and potentially preventing toxicity, however there is a significant gap in evidence due to the lack of quality clinical trials and appropriate outcome measures.
We systematically reviewed outcome measures in CIPN exercise and physical rehabilitation studies with expert panel consensus via the Peripheral Nerve Society Toxic Neuropathy Consortium to provide recommendations for future trials. Across 26 studies, 75 outcome measures were identified and grouped into 16 domains within three core areas - measures of manifestations of CIPN (e.g. symptoms/signs), measures of the impact of CIPN and other outcome measures.
This article provides a conceptual framework for CIPN outcome measures and highlights the need for definition of a core outcome measures set. The authors provide recommendations for CIPN exercise and physical rehabilitation trial design and outcome measure selection. The development of a core outcome measure set will be critical in the search for neuroprotective and treatment approaches to support cancer survivors and to address the gap in the identification of effective rehabilitation and treatment options for CIPN.