Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLie, Marie
dc.contributor.authorMatre, Dagfinn
dc.contributor.authorHansson, Per
dc.contributor.authorStubhaug, Audun
dc.contributor.authorZwart, John-Anker
dc.contributor.authorNilsen, Kristian Bernhard
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-26T10:53:06Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-10T09:09:28Z
dc.date.available2018-07-26T10:53:06Z
dc.date.available2018-09-10T09:09:28Z
dc.date.issued2017-11
dc.identifier.citationLie MU, Matre D, Hansson P, Stubhaug A, Zwart J, Nilsen KB. A tonic heat test stimulus yields a larger and more reliable conditioned pain modulation effect compared to a phasic heat test stimulus. Pain Reports. 2017;2(6)en
dc.identifier.issn2471-2531
dc.identifier.issn2471-2531
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10642/6143
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The interest in conditioned pain modulation (CPM) as a clinical tool for measuring endogenously induced analgesia is increasing. There is, however, large variation in the CPM methodology, hindering comparison of results across studies. Research comparing different CPM protocols is needed in order to obtain a standardized test paradigm. Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess whether a protocol with phasic heat stimuli as test-stimulus is preferable to a protocol with tonic heat stimulus as test-stimulus. Methods: In this experimental crossover study, we compared 2 CPM protocols with different test-stimulus; one with tonic teststimulus (constant heat stimulus of 120-second duration) and one with phasic test-stimuli (3 heat stimulations of 5 seconds duration separated by 10 seconds). Conditioning stimulus was a7˚C water bath in parallel With the test-stimulus. Twenty-four healthy volunteers were assessed on 2 occasions with minimum 1 week apart. Differences in the magnitude and test–retest reliability of the CPM effect in the 2 protocols were investigated with repeated-measures analysis of variance and by relative and absolute reliability indices. Results: The protocol with tonic test-stimulus induced a significantly larger CPM effect compared to the protocol with phasic teststimuli (P ,0.001). Fair and goodrelative reliability was found with the phasic and tonic test-stimuli, respectively. Absolute reliability indices showed large intraindividual variability from session to session in both protocols. Conclusion: The present study shows that a CPM protocol with a tonic test-stimulus is preferable to a protocol with phasic test stimuli. However, we emphasize that one should be cautious to use the CPM effect as biomarker or in clinical decision making on an individual level due to large in train dividual variability.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkinsen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPain Reports;Volume 2 - Issue 6
dc.rightsCopyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The International Association for the Study of Pain. This is an open-access article Distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND),where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectConditioned pain modulationsen
dc.subjectExperimental painsen
dc.subjectReliabilityen
dc.titleA tonic heat test stimulus yields a larger and more reliable conditioned pain modulation effect compared to a phasic heat test stimulusen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.date.updated2018-07-26T10:53:06Z
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000626
dc.identifier.cristin1535021
dc.source.journalPain Reports


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The International Association for the Study of Pain. This is an open-access article Distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND),where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The International Association for the Study of Pain. This is an open-access article Distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND),where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.