SynthesisEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2025
Reliability of Temporal Summation of Pain in Healthy and Clinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of pain (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reliability of Temporal Summation of Pain in Healthy and Clinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Demographic patterns in quantitative sensory testing and clinical pain among former professional American-style football players.Pain reports · 2026Article
- The N13 somatosensory evoked potential in complex regional pain syndrome - A potential marker for central sensitization?Clinical neurophysiology practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTemporal summation of pain (TSP) is a dynamic quantitative sensory test reflecting pain facilitation. Variability in TSP paradigms challenges cross-study comparisons and raises concerns about reliability. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the reliability of TSP in healthy and clinical populations.
methodsFour databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies up to July 2024. Risk of bias and study quality were assessed. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsTwenty-two studies met inclusion criteria, with data from healthy (n = 12) and clinical (n = 7) populations. TSP was assessed using absolute change (difference between first and last stimuli) and relative change (ratio of first to last). ICCs ranged from -0.31 to 0.97. In healthy participants, between-session reliability was poor (ICC = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.40-0.58, I
conclusionTSP demonstrates moderate reliability, influenced by stimulus parameters and population. Small-area mechanical stimuli (e.g., pinprick), tested at 1 Hz using absolute change scores, yield the most reliable results. Further research is needed in clinical populations to better understand TSP mechanisms. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This review suggests that TSP is a reliable measure, with small contact area mechanical stimulus with absolute change calculation method, applied at a rate of 1 Hz, was found to be most reliable. Results highlights the need for standardisation, and consistency in data reporting. While most TSP paradigms were found to have moderate to good reliability, consideration should also be given when translating experimental TSP testing to clinical routine assessment.
trial registrationPROSPERO number: CRD42024566623.
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.