Søren O'Neill1, Claus Manniche, Thomas Graven-Nielsen, Lars Arendt-Nielsen. 1. *Laboratory for Human Experimental Pain Research, Department of Health Science and Technology, Center for Sensory-Motor Interaction, University of Aalborg, Aalborg †Spine Center of Southern Denmark, Lillebælt Hospital, Middelfart ‡Clinical Locomotion Science Network, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A limited number of quantitative sensory pain tests (QST) were selected on the basis of ease of application and interpretation in a clinical setting. QST results were summarized as a composite score on a scale of 0 to 4 that was deemed to facilitate clinical interpretation. The QST set was used to investigate differences in pain sensitivity between low-back pain (LBP) subgroups and was correlated with important clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 198 LBP patients and 44 controls were recruited and data were collected on: LBP intensity and duration, improvement in LBP, functional status, psychological profile, quality of life, and current work situation. QST consisted of pressure-pain threshold of the infraspinatus muscle, pain intensity with sustained mechanical pressure on the thumb nailbed, conditioned pain modulation, and pain tolerance assessed by cold-pressor test. RESULTS: Chronic, but not acute LBP patients scored significantly higher on the composite score of pain sensitivity than controls. A weak linear correlation between the composite score of pain sensitivity and intensity of clinical LBP and disability was found. A contingency was found between a high pain sensitivity (dichotomized composite score of pain sensitivity) and the lack of improvement in LBP. Pain sensitivity did not correlate with LBP duration, psychological profile, or sick leave. CONCLUSIONS: Pain sensitivity may be important for the prognosis of LBP, but QST is not currently part of routine clinical examination of LBP patients. The selected set of pain tests and the composite score of pain sensitivity could serve as a clinically applicable QST procedure in the examination of LBP.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A limited number of quantitative sensory pain tests (QST) were selected on the basis of ease of application and interpretation in a clinical setting. QST results were summarized as a composite score on a scale of 0 to 4 that was deemed to facilitate clinical interpretation. The QST set was used to investigate differences in pain sensitivity between low-back pain (LBP) subgroups and was correlated with important clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 198 LBP patients and 44 controls were recruited and data were collected on: LBP intensity and duration, improvement in LBP, functional status, psychological profile, quality of life, and current work situation. QST consisted of pressure-pain threshold of the infraspinatus muscle, pain intensity with sustained mechanical pressure on the thumb nailbed, conditioned pain modulation, and pain tolerance assessed by cold-pressor test. RESULTS: Chronic, but not acute LBP patients scored significantly higher on the composite score of pain sensitivity than controls. A weak linear correlation between the composite score of pain sensitivity and intensity of clinical LBP and disability was found. A contingency was found between a high pain sensitivity (dichotomized composite score of pain sensitivity) and the lack of improvement in LBP. Pain sensitivity did not correlate with LBP duration, psychological profile, or sick leave. CONCLUSIONS:Pain sensitivity may be important for the prognosis of LBP, but QST is not currently part of routine clinical examination of LBP patients. The selected set of pain tests and the composite score of pain sensitivity could serve as a clinically applicable QST procedure in the examination of LBP.
Authors: Paige Lysne; Ronald Cohen; Lorraine Hoyos; Roger B Fillingim; Joseph L Riley; Yenisel Cruz-Almeida Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Rogelio A Coronado; Steven Z George; Clinton J Devin; Stephen T Wegener; Kristin R Archer Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Angela R Starkweather; Divya Ramesh; Debra E Lyon; Umaporn Siangphoe; Xioayan Deng; Jamie Sturgill; Amy Heineman; R K Elswick; Susan G Dorsey; Joel Greenspan Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Angela R Starkweather; Debra E Lyon; Patricia Kinser; Amy Heineman; Jamie L Sturgill; Xiaoyan Deng; Umaporn Siangphoe; R K Elswick; Joel Greenspan; Susan G Dorsey Journal: Biol Res Nurs Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 2.522
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
Authors: Samantha M Meints; Ishtiaq Mawla; Vitaly Napadow; Jian Kong; Jessica Gerber; Suk-Tak Chan; Ajay D Wasan; Ted J Kaptchuk; Christina McDonnell; Junie Carriere; Bruce Rosen; Randy L Gollub; Robert R Edwards Journal: Pain Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.926