Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27559835›Full record

SynthesisPain2016

Reliability of conditioned pain modulation: a systematic review.

Donna L Kennedy, Harriet I Kemp, Deborah Ridout, David Yarnitsky, Andrew S C Rice

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pain, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 186 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
186citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
32.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT03908853 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Pain Phenotyping of Patients With Bone Cancer Pain

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of CopenhagenRan2019 to 2023Enrolled70ConditionsPain, Bone Metastases, Metastatic Breast Cancer
NCT05161286 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

The Influence of Expectations, Attention and Test Paradigm on the Efficacy of the Pain Processing System

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity GhentRan2021 to 2021Enrolled72ConditionsPain
NCT06333353 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Is Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Effective in Reducing Endometriosis-associated Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OttawaRan2024 to 2027Enrolled152ConditionsEndometriosis, PainArmsReal RepetitiveTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation 5 sessions, Sham RepetitiveTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation 5 sessions, Real RepetitiveTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation 10 sessions, Sham RepetitiveTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation 10 sessions
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

186 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 447 citations in OpenAlex.

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Donna L KennedyPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Harriet I KempPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Deborah RidoutPopulation, Policy and Practice Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
David YarnitskyDepartment of Neurology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Technion Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel.
Andrew S C RicePain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBRambam Health Care Campus · IL

Funding

Department of Health CDRF-2013-04-009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A systematic literature review was undertaken to determine if conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is reliable. Longitudinal, English language observational studies of the repeatability of a CPM test paradigm in adult humans were included. Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias in 6 domains; study participation; study attrition; prognostic factor measurement; outcome measurement; confounding and analysis using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) critical assessment tool. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) less than 0.4 were considered to be poor; 0.4 and 0.59 to be fair; 0.6 and 0.75 good and greater than 0.75 excellent. Ten studies were included in the final review. Meta-analysis was not appropriate because of differences between studies. The intersession reliability of the CPM effect was investigated in 8 studies and reported as good (ICC = 0.6-0.75) in 3 studies and excellent (ICC > 0.75) in subgroups in 2 of those 3. The assessment of risk of bias demonstrated that reporting is not comprehensive for the description of sample demographics, recruitment strategy, and study attrition. The absence of blinding, a lack of control for confounding factors, and lack of standardisation in statistical analysis are common. Conditioned pain modulation is a reliable measure; however, the degree of reliability is heavily dependent on stimulation parameters and study methodology and this warrants consideration for investigators. The validation of CPM as a robust prognostic factor in experimental and clinical pain studies may be facilitated by improvements in the reporting of CPM reliability studies.

Indexed as

PainPain ManagementAdultConditioning, PsychologicalDatabases, FactualHumansPain MeasurementReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID27559835
PMCPMC5228613
OpenAlexW2511763988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.