ArticleBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
The role of biological sex in neurophysiological associations of patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain: a prospective cross-sectional study.
Article in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sex-specific considerations in chronic osteoarthritis pain research: commentary on Pacheco-Barrios et al. (2025).Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to explore the role of sex as a confounder and effect modifier in the associations of clinical outcomes, pain-related outcomes, and neurophysiological measurements in chronic knee OA pain subjects.
methodsSociodemographic, clinical, and neurophysiological data were extracted from 113 knee OA subjects with chronic pain. We performed exploratory multivariate regression models assessing the association of physiological outcomes (Quantitative Sensory Testing [QST], Electroencephalography [EEG], and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation [TMS]) and clinical characteristics (pain, anxiety, and motor function). In each independent model we tested the role of biological sex as confounder and effect modifier (adding the interaction term).
resultsFemales reported higher pain intensity, lower quality of life, diminished pain thresholds, and less EEG alpha power compared to males. Sex negatively confounded the association between pain interference and pain intensity with pain threshold confounding (ranged between -19% to -125%). Moreover, sex acted as an effect modifier, predominantly influencing the relationship between pain interference and frontocentral alpha-delta power in EEG. Similarly, sex modified the association between pain interference and pain threshold. In females EEG and PPT variables explained less variability of pain interference compared to males.
conclusionsOur study suggests that sex is a confounder and effect modifier mainly in the relationship between neurophysiological variables and pain-related outcomes in a chronic OA pain population. Females may have weaker associations between pain intensity and mechanistic outcomes (EEG and QST). Thus, the use of these biomarkers in females requires further optimization. We therefore reinforce the need for accounting for biological sex in the analysis, not only as a confounder, but as an effect modifier in further randomized trials and observational studies in the field of pain.
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.