| Literature DB >> 26914356 |
Eulália Silva dos Santos Pinheiro1,2, Fernanda Costa de Queirós2, Pedro Montoya3, Cleber Luz Santos2, Marion Alves do Nascimento1,2, Clara Hikari Ito1,2, Manuela Silva1,2, David Barros Nunes Santos2, Silvia Benevides2,4, José Garcia Vivas Miranda5, Katia Nunes Sá2,6, Abrahão Fontes Baptista1,2,6.
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to review and summarize recent findings on electroencephalographic patterns in individuals with chronic pain. We also discuss recent advances in the use of quantitative Electroencephalography (qEEG) for the assessment of pathophysiology and biopsychosocial factors involved in its maintenance over time. Data collection took place from February 2014 to July 2015 in PubMed, SciELO and PEDro databases. Data from cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies, as well as clinical trials involving chronic pain participants were incorporated into the final analysis. Our primary findings related to chronic pain were an increase of theta and alpha EEG power at rest, and a decrease in the amplitude of evoked potentials after sensory stimulation and cognitive tasks. This review suggests that qEEG could be considered as a simple and objective tool for the study of brain mechanisms involved in chronic pain, as well as for identifying the specific characteristics of chronic pain condition. In addition, results show that qEEG probably is a relevant outcome measure for assessing changes in therapeutic studies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26914356 PMCID: PMC4767709 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Results of the quality assessment of studies and risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
| Source | Criteria for patients selection | Use of any medication | Quality criteria from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale | Total score (Up to 9 stars) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection (Up to 4 stars) | Comparability between groups (Up to 2 stars) | Outcome (Up to 3 stars) | ||||
| Sarnthein | IASP | Yes (antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants and opiates) | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Stern | IASP | Yes (no neuroactive medication, benzodiazepines, antiepileptic drugs, tricyclic antidepressants, opioids—all doses informed on the original study) | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Veldhuijzen | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Yes (paracetamol and/or NSAIDs) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| Montoya | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Yes (antidepressants, analgesics/muscle relaxants/ non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anxiolytics) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| Sitges | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Yes (antidepressants, analgesics/muscle relaxants/ non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anxiolytics) | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| Boord | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Yes Yes. (amitriptyline, diazepam, gabapentin, mexiletine, morphine, oxycodone, pregabalin, sodium valproate, tramadol and temazepam) | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Bjork | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | No | 4 | 1 | 3 | 8 |
| Sitges | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Yes (antidepressants, analgesics/muscle relaxants/ non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anxiolytics) | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| Bjork | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Same as above | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 |
| Schmidt, | IASP | Yes (antidepressants, analgesics/muscle relaxants/ non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anxiolytics) | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| Mendonça-de-Souza | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Not informed | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Gonzalez-Roldan | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Yes (antidepressants, analgesics/relaxants/ non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anxiolytics) | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| De Vries, | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Yes (opioids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, lithium, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol and proton pump inhibitors) | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| van den Broeke, | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | No | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| Vuckovic, | Study specific Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Yes (baclofen, carbamazepine, gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline and diazepam) | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
a: International Association for the Study of Pain
Study design, demographic and clinical characteristics of subjects from the included studies.
| Source | Study design | Studied conditions (Diagnosis) | Diagnostic criteria | Patients with pain | Controls | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (w,m) | Age in years Mean (SD) or Min—max | Pain intensity (0–10) | Pain duration in years Mean (SD) | N (w,m) | Age in years Mean (SD) or Min—max | ||||
| Sarnthein | Clinical Trial | Neuropathic pain (different origins, severe forms) | IASP | 15 (6, 9) | 62.1 (10.1) | 6.9 (1.2) | Not informed | HC: 15 (8,7) | 41–71 |
| Stern | Clinical Trial | Neuropathic pain (different origins, severe forms) | IASP | 16 (7,9) | 63 (10) | 7.1 (1.4) | Not informed | HC: 16 (8,8) | 56 (12) |
| Veldhuijzen | Cross-sectional | Chronic pain of any origin | Not informed | 14 (4,10) | 47 (2.3) | 6.8 (1.6) | 7.9 (6.1) | HC: 30 (15,15) | 48 (1.6) |
| Montoya | Cross-sectional | Fibromyalgia | ACRc | 15 (15,0) | 49.7 (8.2) | 7.3 (1.7) | 13.5 (9.5) | HC: 15 (15,0) | 48.0 (5.9) |
| Sitges | Cross-sectional | Fibromyalgia and Musculoskeletal pain (due to rheumatoid arthritis, radiculopathy, herniated disk) | Medical records and ACRc | MSK: 18 (14,4) and FM: 18 (18, 0) | MSK: 46.4 (9.2) and FM: 49.4 (6.5) | MSK: 6.2 (1.8)and FM: 6.0 (2.1) | MSK: 6.4 (7.3)and FM: 11.7 (12.5) | HC: 16 (15,1) | 49.2 (8.6) |
| Boord | Cross-sectional | Neuropathic pain (secondary to paraplegia) | Medical records | 8 (1,7) | 35.3 (11.3) | Not informed | Not informed | PNP: 8 (0,8) and AB: 16 (1,15) | 33.5 (10.3) 34.3 (10.7) |
| Bjork | Cross-sectional | Migraine with and without aura | Neurologist + IHSc | 33 (30, 3) | 36.5 (12.7) | 2.4 (.7) on a 0–4 scale | 19.3 (11) | HC: 31 (28,3) | 40.0 (11.4) |
| Sitges | Cross-sectional | Musculoskeletal pain (due to degenerative joint, intervertebrae disc, or inflammatory diseases) | Medical records | 19 (19, 0) | 48.4 (6.9) | 5.2 (1.4) | 6.2 (7.8) | HC: 21 (21.0) | 40.5 (16.7) |
| Bjork | Longitudinal | Migraine with and without aura | Neurologist + IHSc | 25 (23, 2) | 34.7 (12.2) | 2.6 (.5) on a 1–4 scale | 19.0 (10) | HC: 18 (16,2) | 38.5 (11.1) |
| Schmidt | Cross-sectional | Low back pain | IASP | 37 (28,9) | 50.0 (10.2) | Day of EEG: 4.5 (SD = NI) and month prior EEG: 5.7 (2.1) | 13.4 (12.6) | HC: 37 (28,9) | 49.8 (10.8) |
| Mendonça-de-Souza | Cross-sectional | Migraine with aura | IHSc | 11(11,0) | 19–45 | Not informed | Not informed | HC: 7 (7,0) | 19–45 |
| Gonzalez-Roldan | Cross-sectional | Fibromyalgia | ACRc | 20 (20,0) | 53.4 (8.1) | 6.0 (1.3) | 18.3 (13.8) | HC: 20 (20,0) | 52.7 (9.9) |
| De Vries | Cross-sectional | Chronic abdominal pain (due to chronic pancreatitis) | MCCS | 16 (6,10) | 49.5 (11.9) | Severe | 5.4 (2.9) | HC: 16 (6,10) | 48.0 (11.3) |
| van den Broeke | Cross-sectional | Neuropathic pain (operated for unilateral breast cancer) | DN4 | 8 (8,0) | 52 54.3 (6.8) | Last 3 months:4.8 (1.4) and At the day: 1.9 (1.3) | Not informed | PNP: 11 (11,0) | 53 (10.5) |
| Vuckovic | Cross-sectional | Neuropathic pain (secondary to paraplegia) | Not informed | 10 (3,7) | 45.2 (9.1) | 6.8 (1.6) | 9.9 (6.3) | PNP: 10 (2,8) and AB: 10 (3, 7) | PNP: 44.4 (8.1) and AB: 39.1 (10.1) |
SD = Standard deviation; PNP = Patients with no pain; AB = Able-bodied; HC = Healthy controls; NI = Not informed; FM = Fibromyalgia; MSK = Musculoskeletal.
1 Mean and SD of Age and Pain intensity computed by using data provided in the article
2 Mean and SD of Pain intensity and Disease duration computed by using data provided in the article
3 Combined means and SD computed by using data provided in the article.
a International Association for the Study of Pain
b American College of Rheumatology's criteria
c International Headache Society's classification
d Marseille and Cambridge Classification System
e Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire
f Sample size, women / men
g according to Marseille and Cambridge Classification System.
Description of electroencephalographic (EEG) protocols, findings, strenghts and limitations of the included studies.
| Source | Electrodes (total) | Sampling rate (Hz) | Pain condition | EEG Modality | Main outcomes | Results | Merit | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sarnthein | 60 | 250 | Neuropathic pain | Spontaneous EEG at rest (closed eyes) | - Power spectral density (2–25 Hz) and average peak frequency | - 🡹 | - Well defined data preprocessing and editing;—follow up of seven patients 3 and 12 months after (central lateral thalamotomy). | - Nine (out of 15) patients used centrally acting medication |
| Stern | 60 | 250 | Neuropathic pain | Spontaneous EEG at rest (LORETA images, closed and open eyes conditions were pooled for analysis) | - Spectralpower density (alpha, beta, theta) | - | - Assessment before and after central lateral thalamotomy surgery to discuss an anatomo-physiological hypothesis;—well defined data preprocessing and editing. | - Nine (out of 16) patients used centrally acting medication.—small subgroup for after surgery follow up (6 out of 16) |
| Veldhuijzen | 4 | 250 | Chronic pain of any origin | EEG activity elicited by cognitive task | - Event related potential (P300 amplitude and latency) | - Controls showed | Evaluation of data not usually studied by researchers. | Use of 4 electrodes |
| Montoya | 32 | 1,000 | Fibromyalgia | EEG activity elicited by somatosensory or auditory stimulation (two identical stimuli, S1 and S2,delivered with a 550 msec interval) | - Somatosensory event-related potentials | - | Clear and well defined EEG recording strategy. | - Did not explain clearly why only 9 of the 32 electrodes were analyzed. -did not analyze separately subjects taking antidepressants (> 50% of the sample). |
| Sitges | 32 | 1,000 | Fibromyalgia and musculoskeletal pain | EEG activity elicited by cognitive task | - Visual event-related potentials (P2) | - 🡹 | Well defined data preprocessing and editing. | - Nearly 73% of patients with musculoskeletal pain and 60% of patients with fibromyalgia were taking centrally-acting medication (antidepressants).—no measure of illness or pain beliefs in chronic pain patients |
| Boord | 14 | 2,048 | Neuropathic pain | Spontaneous EEG at rest (closed and open eyes) | - Peak theta-alpha Frequency; Eyes closed/ Eyes open reactivity | - | Inclusion of medication as a factor in the analysis. | -Duration of pain is not specified;—Two (out of 8) patients used centrally acting medication |
| Bjork | 12 | 256 | Migraine with and without aura | Spontaneous EEG at rest (closed eyes) | - Absolute spectral power (delta, theta and alpha); Relative spectral power (band power/total power); Inter-hemispheric asymmetry | - | Detailed headache diaries completed before and after the tests. | - Selection of EEG segments for analysis was not clear—Results mostly representative of female migraineurs without aura |
| Sitges | 32 | 1,000 | Musculoskeletal pain | EEG activity elicited by somatosensory stimulation, while viewing pleasent and unpleasent images | - Somatosensory event-related potentials (P50); Power spectra; Entropy and fractal dimension of brain oscillations | - | Well defined preprocessing and editing data. | - Nearly 72% of patients with chronic pain were taking centrally-acting medication (antidepressants)—Patients with chronic pain scored significantly higher than controls on measures of depression and anxiety |
| Bjork | 21 | 256 | Migraine with and without aura | EEG activity elicited by photostimulation (closed eyes) | - Steady state visual evoked EEG-responses (driving power) | - | Pain assessment between and after migraine attack (pain free). | - Selection of EEG segments for analysis was not clear—Different duration os stimulus |
| Schmidt | 60 | 1,000 | Low back pain | Spontaneous EEG at rest (closed eyes) | power indices: Grand-average power spectral density (peak power) and overall power; frequency indices: frequency of the dominant peak (peak frequency) and center of gravity | Current source density distribution algorithm was estimated. | - Eight outcome variables | |
| Mendonça-de-Souza | 6 | 200 | Migraine with aura | Spontaneous EEG at rest (closed eyes) AND EEG activity elicited by photostimulation (closed eyes) | - Partial direct coherence among frontal, parietal and occipital regions | - | Authors used an understudied parameter in EEG analysis (partial coherence). | Selection of EEG segments for analysis was not clear |
| Gonzalez-Roldan | 64 | 1,000 | Fibromyalgia | EEG activity elicited by cognitive task (looking at happy, anger and pain faces) | - Evoked potential amplitude (N100) and spectral power | - | Evoked Potential amplitude and wave amplitude parameters analysis in a cognitive context. | Fibromyalgia patients were more anxious and depressed than pain-free controls. |
| De Vries | 26 | 500 | Chronic abdominal pain | Spontaneous EEG at rest (closed eyes) | - Alpha power amplitude (spectral power) and peak Alpha frequency (center of gravity) | - | - Homogeneous group of patients with persistent visceral pain resulting from chronic pancreatitis. | - Nine (out of 16) patients used centrally acting medication. |
| van den Broeke | 64 | 2,000 | Neuropathic pain | Spontaneous EEG at rest (closed eyes) | - Alpha amplitude (spectral power) and alpha center of gravity | - | Additional analysis of the center of gravity frequency. | - Duration of pain was not reported, but it was not longer than one year;—six (out of eight) patients had pain intensity of 1 (on a 1–10 scale) at the experiment's day. |
| Vuckovic | 61 | 250 | Neuropathic pain | EEG at rest (closed and open eyes) and EEG activity elicited by cognitive task (imagery, open eyes) | - Power spectral densities (theta, alpha and beta);—Event-related desynchronization (ERD) and event-related synchronization (ERS) | - | Compared paraplegic patients with and without pain with able-bodied volunteers with no chronic pain. | Some patients in the group of paraplegic patients with pain were taken centrally acting medication. |
Fig 1Flow chart of selection process for eligible studies.