Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorLie, Marie
dc.contributor.authorPetriu, Elena
dc.contributor.authorMatre, Dagfinn
dc.contributor.authorHansson, Per
dc.contributor.authorAndersen, Ole Kæseler
dc.contributor.authorZwart, John-Anker
dc.contributor.authorNilsen, Kristian Bernhard
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-10T11:55:05Z
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-13T17:53:38Z
dc.date.available2020-01-10T11:55:05Z
dc.date.available2020-03-13T17:53:38Z
dc.date.issued2019-07-29
dc.identifier.citationLie MU, Petriu, Matre D, Hansson P, Andersen, Zwart J, Nilsen KB. Psychophysical or spinal reflex measures when assessing conditioned pain modulation?. European Journal of Pain. 2019:1-11en
dc.identifier.issn1090-3801
dc.identifier.issn1090-3801
dc.identifier.issn1532-2149
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10642/8273
dc.description.abstractBackground: Assessing conditioning pain modulation (CPM) with spinal reflex measures may produce more objective and stable CPM effects than using psychophysical measures. The aim of the study was to compare the CPM effect and test–retest reliability between a psychophysical protocol with thermal test‐stimulus and a spinal reflex protocol with electrical test‐stimulus. Methods: Twenty‐five healthy volunteers participated in two identical experiments separated by minimum 1 week. The thermal test‐stimulus was a constant heat stimulation of 120 s on the subjects’ forearm with continuous ratings of pain intensity on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. The electrical test‐stimulus was repeated electrical stimulation on the arch of the foot for 120 s, which elicited a nociceptive withdrawal reflex recorded from the anterior tibial muscle. Conditioning stimulus was a 7°C water bath. Differences in the magnitude and test–retest reliability were investigated with repeated‐measures analysis of variance and by relative and absolute reliability indices. Results: The CPM effect was −46% and 4.5% during the thermal and electrical test‐stimulus (p < 0.001) respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.5 and 0.4 was found with the electrical and thermal test‐stimulus respectively. Wide limits of agreement were found for both the electrical (−3.4 to 3.8 mA) and the thermal test‐stimulus (−3.2 to 3.6 cm). Conclusions: More pronounced CPM effect was demonstrated when using a psychophysical protocol with thermal test‐stimulus compared to a spinal reflex protocol with electrical test‐stimulus. Fair relative reliability and poor absolute reliability (due to high intraindividual variability) was found in both protocols. Significance: The large difference in CPM effect between the two protocols suggests that the CPM effect relates to pain perception rather than nociception on the spinal level. Due to poor absolute intrarater reliability, we recommend caution and further research before using any of the investigated CPM protocols in clinical decision making on an individual level.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThe present study received funding from the Oslo University Hospital and Oslo37 Metropolitan University. Author Ole Kæseler Andersen received funding from the Danish38 National Research Foundation (DNRF121).en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWileyen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEuropean Journal of Pain;Volume 23, Issue 10, November 2019
dc.rightsPostprint-versjonen av artikkelen kan egenarkiveres med en embargo på tolv måneder så lenge den inneholder følgende erklæring: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Lie, MU, Petriu, E, Matre, D, et al. Psychophysical or spinal reflex measures when assessing conditioned pain modulation? Eur J Pain. 2019; 23: 1879– 1889, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1462. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.en
dc.subjectSpinal reflex measuresen
dc.subjectPain modulationsen
dc.subjectPain modulation assessmentsen
dc.subjectPsychophysical protocolsen
dc.titlePsychophysical or spinal reflex measures when assessing conditioned pain modulation?en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.date.updated2020-01-10T11:55:05Z
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1462
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1462
dc.identifier.cristin1713481
dc.source.journalEuropean Journal of Pain


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel