OBJECTIVE: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) responses may be affected by psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, and pain catastrophizing; however, most studies on CPM do not address these relations as their primary outcome. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the findings regarding the associations between CPM responses and psychological factors in both pain-free individuals and pain patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a comprehensive PubMed search, 37 articles were found to be suitable for inclusion. Analyses used DerSimonian and Laird's random-effects model on Fisher's z-transforms of correlations; potential publication bias was tested using funnel plots and Egger's regression test for funnel plot asymmetry. Six meta-analyses were performed examining the correlations between anxiety, depression, and pain catastrophizing, and CPM responses in healthy individuals and pain patients. RESULTS: No significant correlations between CPM responses and any of the examined psychological factors were found. However, a secondary analysis, comparing modality-specific CPM responses and psychological factors in healthy individuals, revealed the following: (1) pressure-based CPM responses were correlated with anxiety (grand mean correlation in original units r=-0.1087; 95% confidence limits, -0.1752 to -0.0411); (2) heat-based CPM was correlated with depression (r=0.2443; 95% confidence limits, 0.0150 to 0.4492); and (3) electrical-based CPM was correlated with pain catastrophizing levels (r=-0.1501; 95% confidence limits, -0.2403 to -0.0574). DISCUSSION: Certain psychological factors seem to be associated with modality-specific CPM responses in healthy individuals. This potentially supports the notion that CPM paradigms evoked by different stimulation modalities represent different underlying mechanisms.
OBJECTIVE: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) responses may be affected by psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, and pain catastrophizing; however, most studies on CPM do not address these relations as their primary outcome. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the findings regarding the associations between CPM responses and psychological factors in both pain-free individuals and painpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a comprehensive PubMed search, 37 articles were found to be suitable for inclusion. Analyses used DerSimonian and Laird's random-effects model on Fisher's z-transforms of correlations; potential publication bias was tested using funnel plots and Egger's regression test for funnel plot asymmetry. Six meta-analyses were performed examining the correlations between anxiety, depression, and pain catastrophizing, and CPM responses in healthy individuals and painpatients. RESULTS: No significant correlations between CPM responses and any of the examined psychological factors were found. However, a secondary analysis, comparing modality-specific CPM responses and psychological factors in healthy individuals, revealed the following: (1) pressure-based CPM responses were correlated with anxiety (grand mean correlation in original units r=-0.1087; 95% confidence limits, -0.1752 to -0.0411); (2) heat-based CPM was correlated with depression (r=0.2443; 95% confidence limits, 0.0150 to 0.4492); and (3) electrical-based CPM was correlated with pain catastrophizing levels (r=-0.1501; 95% confidence limits, -0.2403 to -0.0574). DISCUSSION: Certain psychological factors seem to be associated with modality-specific CPM responses in healthy individuals. This potentially supports the notion that CPM paradigms evoked by different stimulation modalities represent different underlying mechanisms.
Authors: Daniel E Harper; Eric Ichesco; Andrew Schrepf; Johnson P Hampson; Daniel J Clauw; Tobias Schmidt-Wilcke; Richard E Harris; Steven E Harte Journal: J Pain Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Michael A Owens; Romy Parker; Rachael L Rainey; Cesar E Gonzalez; Dyan M White; Anooshah E Ata; Jennifer I Okunbor; Sonya L Heath; Jessica S Merlin; Burel R Goodin Journal: J Neurovirol Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 2.643
Authors: Viviana Lo Buono; Maria Cristina De Cola; Marcella Di Cara; Daniela Floridia; Lilla Bonanno; Simona De Salvo; Francesco Cerra; Cecilia Cannistraci; Giuseppa Maresca; Placido Bramanti; Silvia Marino; Francesco Corallo Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: David Borsook; Andrew M Youssef; Nadia Barakat; Christine B Sieberg; Igor Elman Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 8.989