Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33178373›Full record

ArticlePain research & management2020

Central Sensitivity Is Associated with Poor Recovery of Pain: Prediction, Cluster, and Decision Tree Analyses.

Hayato Shigetoh, Masayuki Koga, Yoichi Tanaka, Shu Morioka

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain research & management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Subgroup characteristics in care workers with low back pain: cluster analysis-based severity of central sensitivity syndromes and low back pain.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hayato ShigetohDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Kio University, Nara, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-1290-3579
Masayuki KogaDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Kio University, Nara, Japan.
Yoichi TanakaDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Kio University, Nara, Japan.
Shu MoriokaDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Kio University, Nara, Japan.
Kio University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The process of pain recovery varies and can include the recovery, maintenance, or worsening of symptoms. Many cases of patients with pain show a tendency of recovering as predicted; however, some do not. The characteristics of cases that do not fit the prediction of pain recovery remain unclear. We performed cluster and decision tree analyses to reveal the characteristics in cases that do not fit the prediction of pain recovery. A total of 43 patients with musculoskeletal pain (nonoperative: 22 patients, operative: 13 patients) and central pain (brain disease: 5 patients, spinal cord disease: 3 patients) were included in this longitudinal study. Central sensitivity syndrome (CSS) outcome measures (Central Sensitisation Inventory), pain intensity-related outcome measures (Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SFMPQ-2)), and cognitive-emotional outcome measures (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Pain Catastrophising Scale-4) of all patients were assessed at baseline and after 1-2 months. Regression analysis was used to calculate pain recovery prediction values. A hierarchical cluster analysis based on the predicted change of SFMPQ-2 and the observed change of SFMPQ-2 was used to extract subgroups that fit and those that do not fit pain recovery prediction. To extract the characteristics of subgroups that do not fit the prediction of pain recovery, a decision tree analysis was performed. The level of significance was set at 5%. In the results of cluster analysis, patients were classified into three subgroups. Cluster 1 was characterised by worse pain intensity from baseline, cluster 2 by pain, having recovered less and mildly than the predicted value, and Cluster 3 by a marked recovery of pain. In the results of the decision tree analysis, the CSI change was extracted as an indicator related to the classification of all clusters. Our findings suggest that the poor improvement of CSS is characteristic in cases that do not fit the prediction of pain recovery.

Indexed as

Decision TreesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCentral Nervous System SensitizationCluster AnalysisEmotionsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal PainPain MeasurementPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID33178373
PMCPMC7647749
OpenAlexW3095163381

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.