Pain, Hyperalgesia and Stress

Jänig, Wilfrid

doi:10.1002/ejp.701

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…18 Whereas QST measures of hyperalgesia in the painful body region cannot be considered as a clear indicator of CS, increased sensitivity to sensory input in nonpainful body parts is generally accepted as a clinical sign of CS. [111][112][113][114][115] Following the current recommendations towards clinicians, the individuals with CWAD included could qualify for the diagnosis of CS, given their screening on neuropathic pain, high CSI (and other self-reported psychological outcomes) score, and the fact that EPTs at both wrists differed significantly from PFCs although the majority of the included individuals with CWAD only reported unilateral pain symptoms. However, as stated, the findings of this study could be influenced by the fact that electrical stimuli co-activate non-nociceptive Aβ-fibers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Reports of Pain, Disability, Quality of Life, Psychological Factors, and Central Sensitization Related to Outcomes of Quantitative Sensory Testing in Patients Suffering From Chronic Whiplash Associated Disorders?

Lenoir

Willaert

Ickmans

et al. 2021

The Clinical Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Chronic whiplash associated disorders (CWAD) are characterized by long-lasting symptoms of neck pain occurring after an acceleration-deceleration injury. Central sensitization (CS) has been suggested as the possible underlying mechanism for these symptoms, and is characterized by changes in the central nervous system. Besides CS, psychological factors are believed to play an important role in the experience of (chronic) pain.Objective: Investigating the relationships between self-reported pain, disability, quality of life, psychological factors, and symptoms of CS; and electrical-based quantitative sensory testing (QST) outcomes in CWAD patients. Secondly, to investigate the differences in QST between CWAD patients and pain-free controls.Methods: Seventy-two individuals with CWAD and 55 pain-free controls underwent electrical stimuli-based QST. Detection and pain thresholds (EPT), temporal summation (TS), and conditioned pain modulation were examined. Spearman correlation and linear mixed models analyses were performed to assess, respectively, the hypothesized associations and group differences in QST. Results:The Pain Catastrophizing magnification subscale correlated with the left wrist EPT (r = −0.332; P = 0.004), and the Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale-20 with the left wrist (r = −0.325; P = 0.005) and ankle (r = −0.330; P = 0.005) EPT. TS at the ankle correlated with the CS inventory (r = 0.303; P = 0.010), Short Form 36 pain subscale (r = −0.325; P = 0.005), and Illness Perception Questionnaire revised consequences subscale (r = 0.325; P = 0.005). EPTs left (P = 0.011) and right wrist (P = 0.023) were lower in the CWAD group, but conditioned pain modulation and TS did not differ between groups. Conclusion:QST outcomes relate to psychological constructs, rather than to self-reported pain intensity and distribution. Local hyperalgesia was found in individuals with CWAD, but no differences in endogenous pain facilitation nor inhibition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Reports of Pain, Disability, Quality of Life, Psychological Factors, and Central Sensitization Related to Outcomes of Quantitative Sensory Testing in Patients Suffering From Chronic Whiplash Associated Disorders?

Lenoir

Willaert

Ickmans

et al. 2021

The Clinical Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…arbormedicalinnovations.com/) (Harte et al, 2013(Harte et al, , 2016Henry et al, 2014;Schrepf et al, 2015;Wasserman et al, 2015)-an automated QST platform. In patients presenting with a localized pain complaint, increased pain sensitivity at remote or unaffected body areas is strongly suggestive of central pain mechanisms and is a common feature of the COPCs (Berkley, Cason, Jacobs, Bradshaw, & Wood, 2001;Chaves et al, 2016;Janig, 2015;Jayaram et al, 2015;McAllister, McGinty, Resuehr, & Berkley, 2009;Scheich et al, 2017;Toriyama, Horiuchi, & Hongo, 2017).…”

Section: Generalized Sensory Hypersensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenotypic features of central sensitization

Williams

2018

J Appl Biobehavioral Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The current manuscript reviews approaches for phenotyping central sensitization (CS). Methods The manuscript covers the concept of diagnostic phenotyping, use of endophenotypes, biomarkers, and symptom clusters. Specifically, the components of CS that include general sensory sensitivity (assessed by quantitative sensory testing) and a symptom cluster denoting sleep difficulties, pain, affect, cognitive difficulties, and low energy (S.P.A.C.E.). Results Each of the assessment domains are described with reference to CS and their presence in chronic overlapping pain conditions (COPCs) - conditions likely influenced by CS. Conclusions COPCs likely represent clinical diagnostic phenotypes of CS. Components of CS can also be assessed using QST or self-report instruments designed to assess single elements of CS or more general composite indices.

show abstract

Pain, Hyperalgesia and Stress

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Are Reports of Pain, Disability, Quality of Life, Psychological Factors, and Central Sensitization Related to Outcomes of Quantitative Sensory Testing in Patients Suffering From Chronic Whiplash Associated Disorders?

Are Reports of Pain, Disability, Quality of Life, Psychological Factors, and Central Sensitization Related to Outcomes of Quantitative Sensory Testing in Patients Suffering From Chronic Whiplash Associated Disorders?

Phenotypic features of central sensitization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About