ArticlePeerJ2021
No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise induced hypoalgesia during different intensities of a dynamic resistance exercise: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Modality and Calculation Method Influence Conditioned Pain Modulation Outcomes-An International Multisite Study.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Influence of Catechol-O-Methyltransferase (COMT) Val158Met Polymorphism in Conditioned Pain Modulation in Women with Migraine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Migraine Features and Nociceptive Profile Do Not Influence Conditioned Pain Modulation in Women With Episodic and Chronic Migraine.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- Neurocognitive Performance and Executive Functions Do Not Influence Conditioned Pain Modulation in Women with Migraine.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Conditioned pain modulation elicited through manual pressure techniques on the cervical spine: a crossover study.Pain reports · 2025Article
- Exploring Changes in Primary Motor Cortex Organization and Associations With Changes in Motor-Sensory Tests Over Time in Relation to Low Back Pain Recovery. A Longitudinal Study.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- Differences in the organization of the primary motor cortex in people with and without low back pain and associations with motor control and sensory tests.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- CPM-Related Mechanisms Could Play a Key Role in the Effects on Pain Sensitivity Induced by Manual Therapy: Three Crossover Trials Investigating the Effects of Manual Pressure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Sensory profiling in classical Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: a case-control study revealing pain characteristics, somatosensory changes, and impaired pain modulation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Associations between primary motor cortex organization, motor control and sensory tests during the clinical course of low back pain. A protocol for a cross-sectional and longitudinal case-control study.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- The influence of exercise on clinical pain and pain mechanisms in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2022Article
- Inter-subject variability of pleasant pain relief using a data-driven approach in healthy volunteers.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConditioned pain modulation (CPM) is measured by comparing pain induced by a test stimulus with pain induced by the same test stimulus, either during (parallel design) or after (sequential design) the conditioning stimulus. Whether design, conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection affect CPM remains unclear.
methodsCPM effects were evaluated in healthy participants (
resultsNo significant differences were identified in absolute CPM data. In relative CPM data, a sequential design resulted in a slightly lower CPM effect compared to a parallel design, and only with a mechanical test stimulus at the neck (-6.1%; 95% CI [-10.1 to -2.1]) and lower leg (-5.9%; 95% CI [-11.7 to -0.1]) but not forearm (-4.5%; 95% CI [-9.0 to 0.1]). Conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection did not influence the CPM effect nor the difference in CPM effects derived from parallel versus sequential designs.
conclusionsDifferences in CPM effects between protocols were minimal or absent. A parallel design may lead to a minimally higher relative CPM effect when using a mechanical test stimulus. The conditioning stimulus intensities assessed in this study and performing two test stimuli did not substantially influence the differences between designs nor the magnitude of the CPM effect.
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.