Literature DB >> 2952934

Sensory-affective relationships among different types of clinical and experimental pain.

D D Price1, S W Harkins, C Baker.   

Abstract

Different types of pain patients used visual analogue scales (VAS) to rate their level of pain sensation intensity (VAS sensory) and degree of unpleasantness (VAS affective) associated with pain experienced at its maximum, usual, and minimum intensity. Women used the same VAS to rate their labor pain during early, active, and transition phases of stage I and in pushing (stage II). Consistent with the hypothesis that the affective dimension of clinical pain can be selectively augmented by perceived degree of threat to health or life, cancer pain patients and chronic pain patients gave higher VAS affective ratings as compared to VAS sensory ratings of their clinical pain, whereas labor patients and patients exposed to experimental pain gave lower VAS affective ratings compared to their VAS sensory ratings of pain. Affective VAS but not sensory VAS ratings of pain were considerably reduced when women in labor focused on the birth of the child as compared to when they focused on their pain. The results underscore the importance of utilizing separate measures of the sensory intensity versus the affective dimension of clinical pain and provide evidence that the affective dimension of different types of clinical pain is powerfully and differentially influenced by psychological contextual factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 2952934     DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(87)90065-0

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


  58 in total

Review 1.  Measuring pain in the clinic.

Authors:  R H Gracely
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  1990 Mar-Jun

Review 2.  Mindfulness meditation-based pain relief: a mechanistic account.

Authors:  Fadel Zeidan; David R Vago
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 5.691

3.  Pain characteristic differences between subacute and chronic back pain.

Authors:  Mona Lisa Chanda; Matthew D Alvin; Thomas J Schnitzer; A Vania Apkarian
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 5.820

Review 4.  Pain assessment.

Authors:  Mathias Haefeli; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of cannabis cigarettes in neuropathic pain.

Authors:  Barth Wilsey; Thomas Marcotte; Alexander Tsodikov; Jeanna Millman; Heather Bentley; Ben Gouaux; Scott Fishman
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 5.820

6.  Predicting individual differences in placebo analgesia: contributions of brain activity during anticipation and pain experience.

Authors:  Tor D Wager; Lauren Y Atlas; Lauren A Leotti; James K Rilling
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Psychometric properties of the modified Symptom Severity Index (SSI).

Authors:  D R Nixdorf; M T John; M M Wall; J R Fricton; E L Schiffman
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  2009-11-02       Impact factor: 3.837

8.  Fear-avoidance beliefs and temporal summation of evoked thermal pain influence self-report of disability in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Steven Z George; Virgil T Wittmer; Roger B Fillingim; Michael E Robinson
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2006-03

9.  The sensory and affective components of pain: are they differentially modifiable dimensions or inseparable aspects of a unitary experience? A systematic review.

Authors:  K Talbot; V J Madden; S L Jones; G L Moseley
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 9.166

10.  The Role of Heart Rate Variability in Mindfulness-Based Pain Relief.

Authors:  Adrienne L Adler-Neal; Christian E Waugh; Eric L Garland; Hossam A Shaltout; Debra I Diz; Fadel Zeidan
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 5.820

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.