Trial reportPain2025
Pain distribution can be determined by classical conditioning.
Trial report in Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractChronic widespread pain (CWP)-as in many other clinical presentations-manifests in ongoing pain without identifiable structural cause, with pain that spreads over multiple body areas. The development and maintenance of symptoms may involve learning mechanisms. Ninety-four healthy volunteers participated in this study and were randomly distributed to 4 groups. In the classical conditioning combined with the verbal suggestion group, US- (small pain distribution) and US+ (large pain distribution) were paired with visual stimuli (CS+ and CS-), and participants were told about this association. In the verbal suggestion group, the conditioning was not performed, whereas in the classical conditioning-only group, learning was not combined with suggestion. In the control group, conditioning and suggestion did not take place. Ratings of perceived pain distribution were collected after each trial and ratings of pain intensity after each block of trials. During the testing phase, participants were exposed to electrocutaneous stimuli corresponding to only the small (US-) pain distribution. The results showed significant differences between CS+ and CS- pain distribution ratings across the experimental groups: conditioning + verbal suggestion ( P < 0.01), conditioning-only group ( P < 0.05), and verbal suggestion-only group ( P < 0.05), but not in the control group ( P > 0.05). Furthermore, significant differences in the perceived pain distribution were found between the control group and all experimental groups. This result supports our main hypothesis that the perceived pain distribution can be influenced by classical conditioning as well as verbal suggestion, although the effect is stronger when both are combined.
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.