Literature DB >> 26075963

Who is healthy? Aspects to consider when including healthy volunteers in QST--based studies-a consensus statement by the EUROPAIN and NEUROPAIN consortia.

Janne Gierthmühlen1, Elena K Enax-Krumova, Nadine Attal, Didier Bouhassira, Giorgio Cruccu, Nanna B Finnerup, Maija Haanpää, Per Hansson, Troels S Jensen, Rainer Freynhagen, Jeffrey D Kennedy, Tina Mainka, Andrew S C Rice, Märta Segerdahl, Søren H Sindrup, Jordi Serra, Thomas Tölle, Rolf-Detlef Treede, Ralf Baron, Christoph Maier.   

Abstract

Clinical and human experimental pain studies often include so-called "healthy" controls in investigations of sensory abnormalities, using quantitative sensory testing (QST) as an outcome measure. However, the criteria for what is considered "healthy" vary among the different studies and between study centers and investigators, partly explaining the high variability of the results. Therefore, several aspects should be considered during inclusion of healthy volunteers in QST-based trials to have homogenous groups of healthy controls with less variability between human experimental studies, so that results are less likely to be false negative or false positive because of subject-related factors. The EUROPAIN and NEUROPAIN consortia aimed to define factors influencing the variability in selection of healthy subjects in QST-based studies before the start of both projects and to give recommendations how to minimize it based on the current literature and expertise of the participants. The present suggestions for inclusion criteria of healthy volunteers into QST-based trials describe a 2-level approach including standardized questionnaires enabling the collection of relevant information on sociodemographic data, medical history, current health status, coping strategies in dealing with pain, and the motivation of the volunteer to participate in the study. These suggestions are believed to help researchers interpret their results in comparison with others and improve the quality of clinical studies including healthy volunteers as controls or in human experimental pain studies. They aim to reduce any confounding factors. Furthermore, the acquired information will allow post hoc analyses of variance for different potential influencing factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26075963     DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000227

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  17 in total

1.  Quantitative sensory testing to evaluate and compare the results after epidural injection and simple discectomy, in patients with radiculopathy secondary to lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Irene Garcia-Saiz; Enrique M San Norberto; Eduardo Tamayo; Enrique Ortega; Cesar Aldecoa
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  Pain Modulation: From Conditioned Pain Modulation to Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Experimental and Clinical Pain.

Authors:  Janie Damien; Luana Colloca; Carmen-Édith Bellei-Rodriguez; Serge Marchand
Journal:  Int Rev Neurobiol       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 3.230

3.  Thermal perception thresholds among workers in a cold climate.

Authors:  Lage Burström; Bodil Björ; Tohr Nilsson; Hans Pettersson; Ingemar Rödin; Jens Wahlström
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 3.015

4.  Ipsilateral and contralateral sensory changes in healthy subjects after experimentally induced concomitant sensitization and hypoesthesia.

Authors:  Elena K Enax-Krumova; Stephanie Pohl; Andrea Westermann; Christoph Maier
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 2.474

5.  Quantitative sensory testing is feasible and is well-tolerated in patients with sickle cell disease following a vaso-occlusive episode.

Authors:  Nitya Bakshi; Ines Lukombo; Inna Belfer; Lakshmanan Krishnamurti
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 3.133

6.  Quantitative sensory testing in physically active individuals and patients who underwent multidisciplinary pain therapy in the longitudinal course.

Authors:  Ulrike Dapunt; Simone Gantz; Anastasiya Zhuk; Katharina Gather; Haili Wang; Marcus Schiltenwolf
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.133

7.  Stratifying patients with peripheral neuropathic pain based on sensory profiles: algorithm and sample size recommendations.

Authors:  Jan Vollert; Christoph Maier; Nadine Attal; David L H Bennett; Didier Bouhassira; Elena K Enax-Krumova; Nanna B Finnerup; Rainer Freynhagen; Janne Gierthmühlen; Maija Haanpää; Per Hansson; Philipp Hüllemann; Troels S Jensen; Walter Magerl; Juan D Ramirez; Andrew S C Rice; Sigrid Schuh-Hofer; Märta Segerdahl; Jordi Serra; Pallai R Shillo; Soeren Sindrup; Solomon Tesfaye; Andreas C Themistocleous; Thomas R Tölle; Rolf-Detlef Treede; Ralf Baron
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 7.926

8.  Evoked potentials after painful cutaneous electrical stimulation depict pain relief during a conditioned pain modulation.

Authors:  Oliver Höffken; Özüm S Özgül; Elena K Enax-Krumova; Martin Tegenthoff; Christoph Maier
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 2.474

9.  Asymptomatic loss of intraepidermal nerve fibers with preserved thermal detection thresholds after repeated exposure to severe cold.

Authors:  Thomas Krøigård; Martin Wirenfeldt; Toke K Svendsen; Søren H Sindrup
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2018-02-04       Impact factor: 2.708

Review 10.  Reliability of conditioned pain modulation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Donna L Kennedy; Harriet I Kemp; Deborah Ridout; David Yarnitsky; Andrew S C Rice
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 7.926

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.