ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2014
Mechanistic experimental pain assessment in computer users with and without chronic musculoskeletal pain.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Pain Mechanisms and Psychosocial Variables in Patients With Chronic Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Secondary Analysis From a Randomised Controlled Trial.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Intra-Rater Reliability of Pressure Pain Threshold with Different Algometers in Healthy Participants.Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Investigating the effects of mobilization with movement and exercise on pain modulation processes in shoulder pain - a single cohort pilot study with short-term follow up.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2022Article
- Sleep, Experimental Pain and Clinical Pain in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Healthy Controls.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- Spotlight on topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps: a review.Journal of pain research · 2018Review
- Trunk kinematics and low back pain during pruning among vineyard workers-A field study at the Chateau Larose-Trintaudon.PloS one · 2017Article
- Intra-session absolute and relative reliability of pressure pain thresholds in the low back region of vine-workers: ffect of the number of trials.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMusculoskeletal pain from the upper extremity and shoulder region is commonly reported by computer users. However, the functional status of central pain mechanisms, i.e., central sensitization and conditioned pain modulation (CPM), has not been investigated in this population. The aim was to evaluate sensitization and CPM in computer users with and without chronic musculoskeletal pain.
methodsPressure pain threshold (PPT) mapping in the neck-shoulder (15 points) and the elbow (12 points) was assessed together with PPT measurement at mid-point in the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle among 47 computer users with chronic pain in the upper extremity and/or neck-shoulder pain (pain group) and 17 pain-free computer users (control group). Induced pain intensities and profiles over time were recorded using a 0-10 cm electronic visual analogue scale (VAS) in response to different levels of pressure stimuli on the forearm with a new technique of dynamic pressure algometry. The efficiency of CPM was assessed using cuff-induced pain as conditioning pain stimulus and PPT at TA as test stimulus.
resultsThe demographics, job seniority and number of working hours/week using a computer were similar between groups. The PPTs measured at all 15 points in the neck-shoulder region were not significantly different between groups. There were no significant differences between groups neither in PPTs nor pain intensity induced by dynamic pressure algometry. No significant difference in PPT was observed in TA between groups. During CPM, a significant increase in PPT at TA was observed in both groups (P < 0.05) without significant differences between groups. For the chronic pain group, higher clinical pain intensity, lower PPT values from the neck-shoulder and higher pain intensity evoked by the roller were all correlated with less efficient descending pain modulation (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThis suggests that the excitability of the central pain system is normal in a large group of computer users with low pain intensity chronic upper extremity and/or neck-shoulder pain and that increased excitability of the pain system cannot explain the reported pain. However, computer users with higher pain intensity and lower PPTs were found to have decreased efficiency in descending pain modulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.