ArticleFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2025
Exploring the value of a well-established conditioned pain modulation paradigm in women: a Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) study.
Article in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Conditioned Pain Modulation Inter-Site Variability Study: Effect Sizes and Test-Retest Reliability of Two Models.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is considered a human proxy for descending inhibitory pain pathways. However, there is wide variation in the CPM response described in the literature and ongoing debate about its utility. Methods: Here we explored CPM in women with ( Results: Using a pressure pain threshold test stimulus and ischaemic pressure cuff conditioning stimulus (CS), we found no significant difference in the mean CPM effect between CPP and control participants. Using a robust statistical method (+/-2 standard error of measurement) to further investigate CPM, there was no significant difference in the proportion exhibiting inhibition between controls and CPP participants ( Conclusions: Despite using one of the recommended CPM paradigms we were only able to demonstrate "true" CPM in 23.1% of control participants. Thus, the absence of differences between women with and without chronic pelvic pain must be interpreted with caution. Future studies using different CPM paradigms or larger sample sizes may find different results. Although CPM in chronic pain populations is of major theoretical mechanistic interest, the lack of an established assessment standard led us to question its added value in current clinical research.
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.