Temperature and the cold pressor test

Mitchell, Laura; MacDonald, Raymond; Brodie, Eric E.

doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2004.03.004

Cited by 306 publications

(276 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

248

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All of the scales were able to detect differences in pain resulting from 4 different temperatures, with variations in temperature resulting in statistically significant differences in pain intensity ratings, and lower temperatures resulting in higher pain ratings for each of the 4 scales studied. These results are consistent with previous studies that support each scale's validity [9,10,24,33,44,45], and show that small variations in water temperature result in significant differences in pain intensity ratings [22,40,53,54].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The cold-pressor procedures closely followed the guidelines for this task described in the literature, and were adapted to fit the study aims [40,52,53]. The study had Institutional Review Board approval.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After a 3-minute break, the participants were asked to immerse his or her hand into the tepid warm water again for 2 minutes, and hand temperature was again assessed. Participants underwent 4 trials with 4 different water temperatures (1°C, 3°C, 5°C, and 7°C), in counterbalanced order, as proposed by Mitchell and colleagues [40]. Each participant experienced each water temperature only once, and provided ratings using each of the 4 scales for each temperature; thus, each participant provided 16 ratings.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One method for doing this would be to use an experimental design in which the amount of stimulation is highly controlled [14]. The cold-pressor test is an experimental method for inducing pain that is thought to reflect many (but not all) of the critical components of clinical pain [25], and its advantages are discussed in the literature [14,22,40,53]. Moreover, an increase in pain intensity as water temperature decreases is well documented, with small variations in water temperature resulting in significant differences in pain intensity [22,53,54].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have examined the influence of sex on pain perceptions and pain response to experimental pain [14,40], with normally menstruating women usually being more sensitive to painful stimuli than men [34,36,51,54]. Laboratory pain experiments that include both men and women provide an opportunity to compare the ability of pain ratings to detect these well-established sex differences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales

Ferreira-Valente

Pais-Ribeiro

Jensen

2011

Pain

1,423

931

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) are among the most commonly used measures of pain intensity in clinical and research settings. Although evidence supports their validity as measures of pain intensity, few studies have compared them with respect to the critical validity criteria of responsivity, and no experiment has directly compared all 4 measures in the same study. The current study compared the relative validity of VAS, NRS, VRS, and FPS-R for detecting differences in painful stimulus intensity and differences between men and women in response to experimentally induced pain. One hundred twenty-seven subjects underwent four 20-second cold pressor trials with temperature order counterbalanced across 1°C, 3°C, 5°C, and 7°C and rated pain intensity using all 4 scales. Results showed statistically significant differences in pain intensity between temperatures for each scale, with lower temperatures resulting in higher pain intensity. The order of responsivity was as follows: NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R. However, there were relatively small differences in the responsivity between scales. A statistically significant sex main effect was also found for the NRS, VRS, and FPS-R. The findings are consistent with previous studies supporting the validity of each scale. The most support emerged for the NRS as being both (1) most responsive and (2) able to detect sex differences in pain intensity. The results also provide support for the validity of the scales for use in Portuguese samples. Ó

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales

Ferreira-Valente

Pais-Ribeiro

Jensen

2011

Pain

1,423

931

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Characterization of a novel capsaicin/heat ongoing pain model

Price

Gandhi

Nadeau

et al. 2017

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The roles of race, sex and cognitions in response to experimental pain

Day

Ward

Grover

et al. 2020

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study reports a multivariate test of sex and race differences in experimental pain, and the degree to which these differences could be uniquely attributable to three levels of cognition: primary appraisals (threat, challenge), secondary appraisals (pain catastrophizing) and/or cognitive processes (mindful observing, non‐reactivity). Both the predictive and mediator role of the cognitive variables was of interest. Methods The study employed a cross‐sectional experimental design, with the cold pressor task employed as the pain stimulus. The total sample included N = 355 healthy adults (67% female, 33% male; 70% Caucasian, 30% Asian). Results Significant sex and race differences on pain tolerance were found, with females and racial minorities reporting less pain tolerance (ps < 0.001). Males reported significantly higher challenge appraisals and non‐reactivity, and lower pain catastrophizing than females; Asians reported significantly higher threat appraisals and pain catastrophizing than Caucasians. In multivariate analyses, challenge appraisals and non‐reactivity emerged as the strongest predictors of pain tolerance. Furthermore, challenge appraisals mediated the sex‐pain tolerance association (p = .017). Conclusions This study showed that race and sex differences, at least in part, may be accounted for by differences in pain‐related cognitions. Significance The three levels of cognition investigated in this research represent changeable, important processes for potentially mitigating the impact of pain in vulnerable groups.

show abstract

Temperature and the cold pressor test

Cited by 306 publications

References 35 publications

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales

Characterization of a novel capsaicin/heat ongoing pain model

The roles of race, sex and cognitions in response to experimental pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About