Gender role refers to the culturally and socially constructed meanings that describe how women and men should behave in certain situations according to feminine and masculine roles learned throughout life. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the relationship between gender role and experimental pain responses in healthy human participants. We searched computerized databases for studies published between January 1950 and May 2011 that had measured gender role in healthy human adults and pain response to noxious stimuli. Studies were entered into a meta-analysis if they calculated a correlation coefficient (r) for gender role and experimental pain. Searches yielded 4465 'hits' and 13 studies were eligible for review. Sample sizes were 67-235 participants and the proportion of female participants was 45-67%. Eight types of gender role instrument were used. Meta-analysis of six studies (406 men and 539 women) found a significant positive correlation between masculine and feminine personality traits and pain threshold and tolerance, with a small effect size (r = 0.17, p = 0.01). Meta-analysis of four studies (263 men and 297 women) found a significant negative correlation between gender stereotypes specific to pain and pain threshold and tolerance, with a moderate effect size (r = -0.41, p < 0.001). In conclusion, individuals who considered themselves more masculine and less sensitive to pain than the typical man showed higher pain thresholds and tolerances. Gender stereotypes specific to pain scales showed stronger associations with sex differences in pain sensitivity response than masculine and feminine personality trait scales.

Background and Purpose. Interferential currents (IFC) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are used for pain management. This study compared the analgesic effects of IFC and TENS on experimentally induced ischemic pain in otherwise pain-free subjects using a modified version of the submaximal-effort tourniquet technique. Subjects. The subjects were 30 volunteers (18 male, 12 female) without known pathology that could cause pain. Their mean age was 33.5 years (SD=9.9, range=21–54). Method. A single-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group method was used. The primary outcome measure was the change in the self-report of pain intensity during 1 of 3 possible interventions: (1) IFC, (2) TENS, or (3) sham electrotherapy. The IFC and TENS were administered on the forearm, and the sham electrotherapy group received no current output via a dummy stimulator. Results. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed that there was no change in pain intensity during treatment when all 3 groups were considered together. Further analysis revealed that IFC reduced pain intensity when compared with sham electrotherapy but not when compared only with TENS. Discussion and Conclusion. There were no differences in the magnitude of analgesia between IFC and TENS. Interferential currents reduced pain intensity to a greater extent than sham electrotherapy.

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this single-blind placebo-controlled study was to examine the analgesic effects of interferential currents (IFC) on experimentally induced ischaemic pain. Ischaemic pain was induced using the submaximal effort tourniquet technique (SETT) and pain intensity was recorded using a visual analogue scale at 1-min intervals was used as the primary outcome measure. Following baseline recordings 30 healthy volunteers received either active IFC, sham IFC, or no treatment (10 subjects per group). Data were analysed by calculating the mean change in pain intensity at each 1-min interval by subtracting data during treatment from the baseline data. IFC was administered throughout the duration of the ischaemic pain test via four electrodes (quadripolar application) on the forearm. Active IFC delivered electrical currents at a 'strong but comfortable' intensity. A 'dummy' stimulator that delivered no current was used as sham IFC. Subjects in the no treatment control group were informed that the IFC device was not switched on. There were significant effects for Groups (P=0.04) which were attributed to a significant reduction in pain intensity for the IFC group when compared with sham and no-treatment control (P< or =0.05). There were no significant effects for Time (P=0.69) or Group-Time interaction (P=0.45). In conclusion, IFC produced significantly greater analgesia than sham and no-treatment control groups under the present experimental conditions.