ArticleBMC primary care2024
Explaining persistent physical symptoms to patients in general practice: can tests to measure central sensitisation add value? A mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meditations on Methodological Issues in Clinical Investigations of "Central Sensitization" (Jonah XII).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Relationship between pre-operative central sensitization and post-operative outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair-longitudinal outcomes over 2 post-operative years.JSES international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGeneral practitioners (GPs) often face challenges in explaining to patients with persistent physical symptoms (PPS) why their symptoms persist. Providing an explanation of the central sensitisation (CS) mechanism to patients could be helpful, yet GPs do not routinely test for signs of CS in these patients. The aim of this study was to explore the value of applying a test to assess CS in enhancing explanations provided to patients.
methodsIn this prospective study, 25 GPs applied three tests, selected through a Delphi study, to assess CS-related symptoms: (1) the Central Sensitisation Inventory (CSI); (2) an algometer for measuring pressure pain thresholds (PPT); and (3) a monofilament for assessing temporal summation. Following the tests, both the GP and the patient completed a short questionnaire. Subsequently, GPs shared their experiences in focus groups and interviews, while a sample of patients was interviewed individually. The questionnaires were analysed quantitatively, and the focus groups and interviews were analysed qualitatively.
resultsGPs reported that all tests were feasible to perform during consultations; testing took less than 5 min in 25% of cases and between 5 and 10 min in 60% of cases. In approximately 50% of cases, an additional consultation was required to perform the test. The results of the CSI confirmed CS-related symptoms more frequently (74%) than the algometer (46%) and the monofilament (43%). Consequently, many GPs preferred the CSI. Patients did not show a preference for any specific test; two-third found the tests valuable and approximately 50% reported that the explanation of CS was clearer when a test was used.
conclusionsTesting during the consultation was feasible, although an additional consultation was required in 50% of the cases. GPs preferred the CSI because its results confirmed CS-related symptoms more frequently than those from the algometer and monofilament.
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.