Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34945226›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

The Definition, Assessment, and Prevalence of (Human Assumed) Central Sensitisation in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

Ingrid Schuttert, Hans Timmerman, Kristian K Petersen, Megan E McPhee, Lars Arendt-Nielsen, Michiel F Reneman, André P Wolff

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ingrid SchuttertPain Center, Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9750 RA Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2164-4721
Hans TimmermanPain Center, Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9750 RA Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6082-9043
Kristian K PetersenCenter for Neuroplasticity and Pain, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, DK-9220 Aalborg, Denmark.
Megan E McPheeCenter for Neuroplasticity and Pain, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, DK-9220 Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1637-4384
Lars Arendt-NielsenCenter for Neuroplasticity and Pain, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, DK-9220 Aalborg, Denmark.
Michiel F RenemanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9750 RA Groningen, The Netherlands.
André P WolffPain Center, Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9750 RA Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLAalborg University · DKAalborg University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Central sensitisation is assumed to be one of the underlying mechanisms for chronic low back pain. Because central sensitisation is not directly assessable in humans, the term 'human assumed central sensitisation' (HACS) is suggested. The objectives were to investigate what definitions for HACS have been used, to evaluate the methods to assess HACS, to assess the validity of those methods, and to estimate the prevalence of HACS. Database search resulted in 34 included studies. Forty different definition references were used to define HACS. This review uncovered twenty quantitative methods to assess HACS, including four questionnaires and sixteen quantitative sensory testing measures. The prevalence of HACS in patients with chronic low back pain was estimated in three studies. The current systematic review highlights that multiple definitions, assessment methods, and prevalence estimates are stated in the literature regarding HACS in patients with chronic low back pain. Most of the assessment methods of HACS are not validated but have been tested for reliability and repeatability. Given the lack of a gold standard to assess HACS, an initial grading system is proposed to standardize clinical and research assessments of HACS in patients with a chronic low back.

Indexed as

HACShuman assumed central sensitisationnociplastic painQSTquantitative sensory testingquestionnairesensitisationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34945226
PMCPMC8703986
OpenAlexW4200539466

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.