Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22074753›Full record

ArticleThe journal of pain2011

Pain sensitivity risk factors for chronic TMD: descriptive data and empirically identified domains from the OPPERA case control study.

Joel D Greenspan, Gary D Slade, Eric Bair, Ronald Dubner, Roger B Fillingim, Richard Ohrbach, Charlie Knott, Flora Mulkey, Rebecca Rothwell, William Maixner

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of pain, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 211 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Joel D GreenspanDepartment of Neural and Pain Sciences, and Brotman Facial Pain Center, University of Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, USA. jgreenspan@umaryland.edu
Gary D Slade
Eric Bair
Ronald Dubner
Roger B Fillingim
Richard Ohrbach
Charlie Knott
Flora Mulkey
Rebecca Rothwell
William Maixner
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USBattelle · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

Risk Factors for Onset and Persistence of TMDU01DE017018 · NIDCR · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DIATCHENKO, LUDA, FILLINGIM, ROGER B · 2005 to 2016
$35.9M
University of Florida Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC)P30AG028740 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Peihua Qiu · 2007 to 2026
$22.8M
Vulvar Vestibulitis syndrome (VVS)P01NS045685 · NINDS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MAIXNER, WILLIAM · 2004 to 2014
$12.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028740NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE017018NIDCR NIH HHS U01DE017018NINDS NIH HHS P01 NS045685
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledMany studies report that people with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are more sensitive to experimental pain stimuli than TMD-free controls. Such differences in sensitivity are observed in remote body sites as well as in the orofacial region, suggesting a generalized upregulation of nociceptive processing in TMD cases. This large case-control study of 185 adults with TMD and 1,633 TMD-free controls measured sensitivity to painful pressure, mechanical cutaneous, and heat stimuli, using multiple testing protocols. Based on an unprecedented 36 experimental pain measures, 28 showed statistically significantly greater pain sensitivity in TMD cases than controls. The largest effects were seen for pressure pain thresholds at multiple body sites and cutaneous mechanical pain threshold. The other mechanical cutaneous pain measures and many of the heat pain measures showed significant differences, but with lesser effect sizes. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the pain measures derived from 1,633 controls identified 5 components labeled: 1) heat pain ratings; 2) heat pain aftersensations and tolerance; 3) mechanical cutaneous pain sensitivity; 4) pressure pain thresholds; and 5) heat pain temporal summation. These results demonstrate that compared to TMD-free controls, chronic TMD cases are more sensitive to many experimental noxious stimuli at extracranial body sites, and provide for the first time the ability to directly compare the case-control effect sizes of a wide range of pain sensitivity measures. PERSPECTIVE: This article describes experimental pain sensitivity differences between a large sample of people with chronic TMD and non-TMD controls, using multiple stimulus modalities and measures. Variability in the magnitude and consistency of case-control differences highlight the need to consider multiple testing measures to adequately assess pain processing alterations in chronic pain conditions.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesChronic PainFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPain MeasurementRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificityTemporomandibular Joint DisordersYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22074753
PMCPMC3249228
OpenAlexW2058516044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.