Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39239632›Full record

ArticlePain reports2024

A myriad of methods to determine temporal summation of pain in people with musculoskeletal pain and healthy participants: a scoping review.

Sjoerd C Kielstra, Roland R Reezigt, Michel W Coppieters, Ralph de Vries, Lars Arendt-Nielsen, Kristian K Petersen, David Yarnitsky, Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Pain reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

8 authors.

Sjoerd C KielstraDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1650-3756
Roland R ReezigtDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michel W CoppietersDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ralph de VriesMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Lars Arendt-NielsenCenter for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), Department of Health Science and Technology, School of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Kristian K PetersenCenter for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), Department of Health Science and Technology, School of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
David YarnitskyDepartment of Neurology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.
Gwendolyne G M Scholten-PeetersDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4409-9554

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Temporal summation of pain (TSP) is a human proxy for wind-up of dorsal horn neurons as assessed in animals. The common paradigm for eliciting TSP is evoked by repetitive nociceptive stimuli of equal intensity. Various stimulation and assessment protocols have been used. This scoping review aims to provide insight into key elements of TSP stimulation and assessment: modality, instruments, test location, familiarization, train characteristics, and calculations. PubMed, Embase, and Ebsco/CINAHL were searched for studies that measured TSP in adults with musculoskeletal conditions and healthy people. Four hundred six studies were included. Mechanical stimuli were the most commonly used modality (250 studies), followed by thermal stimuli (125 studies). Forty-six different instruments were used. Disregarding studies on widespread musculoskeletal pain and healthy participants, 40 studies evaluated TSP at painful sites, 77 in remote areas, and 66 in both locations. Of the 13 tested locations in patients, the hand (74 studies), lower leg (64 studies), and forearm (59 studies) were most commonly tested. A single practice round was the most common familiarization method (46 studies). Repeated stimuli were applied using 31 different frequencies (0.03-200 Hz) and sustained stimulations ranging from 5 to 1080 seconds were used. Twenty-two different train lengths, 63 different calculations (37 absolute, 19 relative, and 7 alternatives using data directly), and 14 different outcome measures (eg, self-reported pain rating scales and reflex thresholds) were used. Temporal summation of pain protocols vary excessively, hindering the comparison and pooling of results. None of the studies provided substantiation for their protocol choice.

Indexed as

Pain measurementPain modulationPain perceptionQuantitative sensory testingTemporal summation of painWind-up ratio

Identifiers

PMID39239632
PMCPMC11377091

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.