Research Article An Epidemiological Study of Neuropathic Pain Symptoms in Canadian Adults Elizabeth G. VanDenKerkhof, 1 Elizabeth G. Mann, 2 Nicola Torrance, 3 Blair H. Smith, 4 Ana Johnson, 5 and Ian Gilron 6 1 School of Nursing and Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6 2 School of Nursing, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6 3 Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 4DB, UK 4 Population Health Sciences, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 4DB, UK 5 Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6 6 Departments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine and Biomedical & Molecular Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6 Correspondence should be addressed to Elizabeth G. VanDenKerkhof; EV5@Queensu.ca Received 6 May 2015; Accepted 14 August 2015 Copyright © 2016 Elizabeth G. VanDenKerkhof et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Te reported prevalence of neuropathic pain ranges from 6.9% to 10%; however the only Canadian study reported 17.9%. Te objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology of neuropathic pain in Canada. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a random sample of Canadian adults. Te response rate was 21.1% (1504/7134). Likely or possible neuropathic pain was defned using a neuropathic pain-related diagnosis and a positive outcome on the Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale (S-LANSS) or the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) Questions. Te prevalence of likely neuropathic pain was 1.9% (S-LANSS) and 3.4% (DN4) and that of possible neuropathic pain was 5.8% (S-LANSS) and 8.1% (DN4). Neuropathic pain was highest in economically disadvantaged males. Tere is a signifcant burden of neuropathic pain in Canada. Te low response rate and a slightly older and less educated sample than the Canadian population may have led to an overestimate of neuropathic pain. Population prevalence varies by screening tool used, indicating more work is needed to develop reliable measures. Population level screening targeted towards high risk groups should improve the sensitivity and specifcity of screening, while clinical examination of those with positive screening results will further refne the estimate of prevalence. 1. Introduction Neuropathic pain was recently redefned by the International Association for the Study of Pain as “pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system” [1] and graded as “possible,” “probable,” or “defnite,” depending on the extent and results of neurological assessment [2, 3]. Early estimates of the prevalence of neuropathic pain based on physical examination in clinic populations ranged from 1% to 3% [4–7]. In the general population, previous estimates based on self-report ranged from 6.5% to 17.9% [8–13]. A recent systematic review of epidemiological studies on neuropathic pain suggests that the prevalence likely lies between 6.9% and 10% [14]. Neuropathic pain is a clinical entity [1], the diagnosis of which is based primarily on history and physical examination [15–19] and the exclusion of other possible diagnoses or types of pain. Te impracticality of conducting clinical examinations in large population studies and the lack of a “gold standard,” in addition to the variety of screening tools and the way in which they are administered, contribute to the heterogeneity of estimates of neuropathic pain in the general population [14]. Neuropathic pain is ofen experienced in parts of the body which otherwise appear normal. It is characterized by features such as numbness, paresthesia, and allodynia [20], and it is generally nonresponsive to standard analgesics to treat Hindawi Publishing Corporation Pain Research and Management Volume 2016, Article ID 9815750, 13 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9815750