Literature DB >> 23658120

Can quantitative sensory testing predict responses to analgesic treatment?

K Grosen1, I W D Fischer, A E Olesen, A M Drewes.   

Abstract

The role of quantitative sensory testing (QST) in prediction of analgesic effect in humans is scarcely investigated. This updated review assesses the effectiveness in predicting analgesic effects in healthy volunteers, surgical patients and patients with chronic pain. A systematic review of English written, peer-reviewed articles was conducted using PubMed and Embase (1980-2013). Additional studies were identified by chain searching. Search terms included 'quantitative sensory testing', 'sensory testing' and 'analgesics'. Studies on the relationship between QST and response to analgesic treatment in human adults were included. Appraisal of the methodological quality of the included studies was based on evaluative criteria for prognostic studies. Fourteen studies (including 720 individuals) met the inclusion criteria. Significant correlations were observed between responses to analgesics and several QST parameters including (1) heat pain threshold in experimental human pain, (2) electrical and heat pain thresholds, pressure pain tolerance and suprathreshold heat pain in surgical patients, and (3) electrical and heat pain threshold and conditioned pain modulation in patients with chronic pain. Heterogeneity among studies was observed especially with regard to application of QST and type and use of analgesics. Although promising, the current evidence is not sufficiently robust to recommend the use of any specific QST parameter in predicting analgesic response. Future studies should focus on a range of different experimental pain modalities rather than a single static pain stimulation paradigm.
© 2013 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23658120     DOI: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00330.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Pain        ISSN: 1090-3801            Impact factor:   3.931


  24 in total

1.  Pain: Quantitative sensory testing--a tool for daily practice?

Authors:  Frank Birklein; Claudia Sommer
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 42.937

Review 2.  Can quantitative sensory testing move us closer to mechanism-based pain management?

Authors:  Yenisel Cruz-Almeida; Roger B Fillingim
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 3.750

3.  Pain sensitivity subgroups in individuals with spine pain: potential relevance to short-term clinical outcome.

Authors:  Rogelio A Coronado; Joel E Bialosky; Michael E Robinson; Steven Z George
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2014-04-24

Review 4.  Toward a Mechanism-Based Approach to Pain Diagnosis.

Authors:  Daniel Vardeh; Richard J Mannion; Clifford J Woolf
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.820

5.  Analgesic Effects of Hydromorphone versus Buprenorphine in Buprenorphine-maintained Individuals.

Authors:  Andrew S Huhn; Eric C Strain; George E Bigelow; Michael T Smith; Robert R Edwards; D Andrew Tompkins
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  The comparative effects of spinal and peripheral thrust manipulation and exercise on pain sensitivity and the relation to clinical outcome: a mechanistic trial using a shoulder pain model.

Authors:  Rogelio A Coronado; Joel E Bialosky; Mark D Bishop; Joseph L Riley; Michael E Robinson; Lori A Michener; Steven Z George
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 4.751

Review 7.  Towards optimising experimental quantification of persistent pain in Parkinson's disease using psychophysical testing.

Authors:  Rory V Smith; Patrick Wilkins; Kirsty Bannister; Tatum M Cummins
Journal:  NPJ Parkinsons Dis       Date:  2021-03-17

Review 8.  Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

Authors:  Robert R Edwards; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Martin S Angst; Raymond Dionne; Roy Freeman; Per Hansson; Simon Haroutounian; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Nadine Attal; Ralf Baron; Joanna Brell; Shay Bujanover; Laurie B Burke; Daniel Carr; Amy S Chappell; Penney Cowan; Mila Etropolski; Roger B Fillingim; Jennifer S Gewandter; Nathaniel P Katz; Ernest A Kopecky; John D Markman; George Nomikos; Linda Porter; Bob A Rappaport; Andrew S C Rice; Joseph M Scavone; Joachim Scholz; Lee S Simon; Shannon M Smith; Jeffrey Tobias; Tina Tockarshewsky; Christine Veasley; Mark Versavel; Ajay D Wasan; Warren Wen; David Yarnitsky
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 7.926

9.  Cannabinoid effects on responses to quantitative sensory testing among individuals with and without clinical pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  Chung Jung Mun; Janelle E Letzen; Erica N Peters; Claudia M Campbell; Ryan Vandrey; Julia Gajewski-Nemes; Dana DiRenzo; Christine Caufield-Noll; Patrick H Finan
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 7.926

10.  Methadone maintenance patients lack analgesic response to a cumulative intravenous dose of 32 mg of hydromorphone.

Authors:  Gabrielle Agin-Liebes; Andrew S Huhn; Eric C Strain; George E Bigelow; Michael T Smith; Robert R Edwards; Valerie A Gruber; D Andrew Tompkins
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 4.852

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.