ArticleNeuroImage2020
Noxious pressure stimulation demonstrates robust, reliable estimates of brain activity and self-reported pain.
Article in NeuroImage, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of pressure-induced pain in patients with disorders of consciousness based on functional near infrared spectroscopy.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Investigating the effects of artificial baroreflex stimulation on pain perception: A comparative study in no-pain and chronic low back pain individuals.The Journal of physiology · 2024Article
- Neuroimaging Assessment of Pain.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2022Review
- Effect sizes and test-retest reliability of the fMRI-based neurologic pain signature.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- A Multisensory fMRI Investigation of Nociceptive-Preferential Cortical Regions and Responses.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Imaging Brain Glx Dynamics in Response to Pressure Pain Stimulation: AFrontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Functional neuroimaging techniques have provided great insight in the field of pain. Utilising these techniques, we have characterised pain-induced responses in the brain and improved our understanding of key pain-related phenomena. Despite the utility of these methods, there remains a need to assess the test retest reliability of pain modulated blood-oxygen-level-dependant (BOLD) MR signal across repeated sessions. This is especially the case for more novel yet increasingly implemented stimulation modalities, such as noxious pressure, and it is acutely important for multi-session studies considering treatment efficacy. In the present investigation, BOLD signal responses were estimated for noxious-pressure stimulation in a group of healthy participants, across two separate sessions. Test retest reliability of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data and self-reported visual analogue scale measures were determined by the intra-class correlation coefficient. High levels of reliability were observed in several key brain regions known to underpin the pain experience, including in the thalamus, insula, somatosensory cortices, and inferior frontal regions, alongside "excellent" reliability of self-reported pain measures. These data demonstrate that BOLD-fMRI derived signals are a valuable tool for quantifying noxious responses pertaining to pressure stimulation. We further recommend the implementation of pressure as a stimulation modality in experimental applications.
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.