Abstract
Background: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is much more prevalent in women than men but potential differences in clinical phenotype have not been thoroughly explored to date. Differences in the clinical presentation between sexes may point at new avenues for a more tailored management approach of CRPS. We therefore explored if in CRPS, the patient's sex is associated with differences in clinical and psychological characteristics.
Methods: In this cross‐sectional study of 698 CRPS patients (599 females) fulfilling the Budapest clinical or research criteria, CRPS signs and symptoms, CRPS severity, pain (average pain intensity in the previous week and McGill pain rating index), pain coping (Pain Coping Inventory), physical limitations (Radboud Skills Questionnaire (upper limb), Walking and Rising questionnaire (lower limb)), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale) and kinesiophobia (Tampa scale for kinesiophobia) were evaluated.
Results: Male CRPS patients used more often extreme words to describe the affective qualities of pain, used more passive pain coping strategies, and were more likely to suffer from depression and kinesiophobia.
Conclusion: Sex‐related differences are present in CRPS, but the effect is generally small and mainly concerns psychological functioning. A greater awareness of sex‐ specific factors in the management of CRPS may contribute to achieving better outcomes.
Significance: What is known? Nonsex‐specific clinical data of CRPS patients. What is new? Male CRPS patients used more often extreme words to describe the affective qualities of pain, used more passive pain coping strategies, and were more likely to suffer from depression and kinesiophobia.

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1375, hdl.handle.net/1765/118159
Journal European Journal of Pain
Citation
van Velzen, GAJ, Huygen, F.J.P.M, van Kleef, M, van Eijs, F.V., Marinus, J, & van Hilten, J.J. (2019). Sex matters in complex regional pain syndrome. European Journal of Pain, 23(6), 1108–1116. doi:10.1002/ejp.1375