OBJECTIVES: To examine the temporal stability of conditioned pain modulation (CPM), formerly termed diffuse noxious inhibitory controls, among a sample of patients with chronic pain. The study also examined the factors that might be responsible for the stability of CPM. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND METHODS: In this test-retest study, patients underwent a series of standardized psychophysical pain-testing procedures designed to assess CPM on two separate occasions (i.e., baseline and follow up). Patients also completed self-report measures of catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS] and negative affect [NA]). RESULTS: Overall, results provided evidence for the stability of CPM among patients with chronic pain. Results, however, revealed considerable sex differences in the stability of CPM. For women, results revealed a significant test-retest correlation between baseline and follow-up CPM scores. For men, however, the test-retest correlation between baseline and follow-up CPM scores was not significant. Results of a Fisher's Z-test revealed that the stability of CPM was significantly greater for women than for men. Follow-up analyses revealed that the difference between men and women in the stability of CPM could not be accounted for by any demographic (e.g., age) and/or psychological factors (PCS and NA). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that CPM paradigms possess sufficient reliability to be incorporated into bedside clinical evaluation of patients with chronic pain, but only among women. The lack of CPM reproducibility/stability observed among men places limits on the potential use of CPM paradigms in clinical settings for the assessment of men's endogenous pain-inhibitory function. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the temporal stability of conditioned pain modulation (CPM), formerly termed diffuse noxious inhibitory controls, among a sample of patients with chronic pain. The study also examined the factors that might be responsible for the stability of CPM. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND METHODS: In this test-retest study, patients underwent a series of standardized psychophysical pain-testing procedures designed to assess CPM on two separate occasions (i.e., baseline and follow up). Patients also completed self-report measures of catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS] and negative affect [NA]). RESULTS: Overall, results provided evidence for the stability of CPM among patients with chronic pain. Results, however, revealed considerable sex differences in the stability of CPM. For women, results revealed a significant test-retest correlation between baseline and follow-up CPM scores. For men, however, the test-retest correlation between baseline and follow-up CPM scores was not significant. Results of a Fisher's Z-test revealed that the stability of CPM was significantly greater for women than for men. Follow-up analyses revealed that the difference between men and women in the stability of CPM could not be accounted for by any demographic (e.g., age) and/or psychological factors (PCS and NA). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that CPM paradigms possess sufficient reliability to be incorporated into bedside clinical evaluation of patients with chronic pain, but only among women. The lack of CPM reproducibility/stability observed among men places limits on the potential use of CPM paradigms in clinical settings for the assessment of men's endogenous pain-inhibitory function. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Joel D Greenspan; Rebecca M Craft; Linda LeResche; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Karen J Berkley; Roger B Fillingim; Michael S Gold; Anita Holdcroft; Stefan Lautenbacher; Emeran A Mayer; Jeffrey S Mogil; Anne Z Murphy; Richard J Traub Journal: Pain Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Roger B Fillingim; Christopher D King; Margarete C Ribeiro-Dasilva; Bridgett Rahim-Williams; Joseph L Riley Journal: J Pain Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Tyler A Toledo; Bethany L Kuhn; Michael F Payne; Edward W Lannon; Shreela Palit; Cassandra A Sturycz; Natalie Hellman; Yvette M Güereca; Mara J Demuth; Felicitas Huber; Joanna O Shadlow; Jamie L Rhudy Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2020-08-08
Authors: Kosaku Aoyagi; Jianghua He; Andrea L Nicol; Daniel J Clauw; Patricia M Kluding; Stephen Jernigan; Neena K Sharma Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: R R Edwards; A J Dolman; E Michna; J N Katz; S S Nedeljkovic; D Janfaza; Z Isaac; M O Martel; R N Jamison; A D Wasan Journal: Pain Med Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 3.750