Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29285568›Full record

ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2017

Characterization of migraineurs presenting interictal widespread pressure hyperalgesia identified using a tender point count: a cross-sectional study.

Toshihide Toriyama, Tetsuyoshi Horiuchi, Kazuhiro Hongo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Efficacy of a dual task protocol on neurophysiological and clinical outcomes in migraine: a randomized control trial.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Instrumental assessment of pressure pain threshold over trigeminal and extra-trigeminal area in people with episodic and chronic migraine: a cross-sectional observational study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Phenotypic Features of Central Sensitization.Journal of applied biobehavioral research · 2018
    Article
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

3 authors.

Toshihide ToriyamaToriyama Clinic, Hachiman 187-1, Komoro, Nagano, Japan.
Tetsuyoshi HoriuchiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Asahi 3-1-1, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan. tetuyosi@shinshu-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5620-510X
Kazuhiro HongoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Asahi 3-1-1, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMigraineurs exhibit pain hypersensitivity throughout the body during and between migraine headaches. Migraine is classified as a central sensitivity syndrome, typified by fibromyalgia showing widespread pressure hyperalgesia determined by a tender point. This study was performed to examine whether: 1) there is a subgroup of episodic migraineurs with widespread pressure hyperalgesia during and between attacks; 2) if such a subgroup exists, what is the prevalence and what is the difference between groups with interictal widespread hyperalgesia and acute allodynia regarding the demographic and clinical characteristics of migraine.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional study. A total of 176 consecutive episodic migraineurs and 132 age- and sex-matched controls were recruited. The presence of widespread pressure hyperalgesia was investigated using manual tender point survey. To classify a subject's response as widespread pressure hyperalgesia, the cutoff value for responders was defined as the positive tender point count below which 95% of controls responded.

resultsBased on the number of positive tender points in controls, the cutoff value of tender point count for pressure hyperalgesia responders was 7. Of the 176 subjects, interictal widespread pressure hyperalgesia and acute allodynia were observed in 74 (42%) and 115 (65.3%) patients, respectively. Univariate analysis indicated that risk factors associated with interictal widespread pressure hyperalgesia were female gender, younger age at migraine onset, higher frequency of migraine attacks, severe headache impact, cutaneous allodynia and depression. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that independent risk factors associated with interictal widespread pressure hyperalgesia were female gender, higher frequency of migraine attack and younger age at onset.

conclusionInterictal widespread pressure hyperalgesia was common (42%) in the episodic migraineurs and was associated with younger age at onset, female gender, and higher frequency of headache, but not duration of migraine illness. Presence of interictal widespread pressure hyperalgesia is assumed to be an indicator of genetic susceptibility to migraine attacks. We expect that a tender point count, as an alternative to quantitative sensory testing, will become useful as a diagnostic indicator of interictal hyperalgesia in migraineurs to predict susceptibility to migraine attacks and to permit tailored treatment.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedComorbidityCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansHyperalgesiaJapanMaleMiddle AgedMigraine DisordersMyofascial Pain SyndromesPressureYoung AdultAllodyniaCentral sensitizationFibromyalgiaHyperalgesiaMigrainePain thresholdsTender point

Identifiers

PMID29285568
PMCPMC5745372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.