ArticleScientific reports2026
Assessment of central pain sensitization in chronic low back pain and its utility in diagnosis and prediction of clinical severity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Common Mechanisms in Migraine, Migraine-Related Neck Pain, and Low Back Pain: Implications for Treatment.Pain and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Slowly repeated evoked pain (SREP) is a dynamic pain indicator useful in conditions involving central sensitization. This study evaluated SREP in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and compared it to temporal summation of pain (TSP). The SREP protocol involved nine low-to-moderate painful pressure stimuli (5 s each, 30-s intervals) in 40 patients with CLBP and 40 healthy individuals. Clinical-psychological factors, pain threshold, tolerance, and TSP were assessed. Patients with CLBP showed increasing pain ratings to SREP (0.78 ± 1.05), while healthy individuals did not (-0.44 ± 1.10). No significant group differences were found in TSP, pain threshold and tolerance. SREP effectively distinguished patients with CLBP from healthy individuals (66.3% accuracy), with an optimal cut-off of 0.05 (sensitivity = 77.5%, specificity = 60%), while other pain tests did not. Usual and current pain, central sensitization-related symptoms, and catastrophizing correlated with TSP but not SREP. Sensitization to SREP distinguished patients with CLBP from healthy individuals while TSP did not provide discriminatory ability. However, SREP did not predict clinical severity of the patients, whereas TSP allowed for the prediction of clinical severity. Future development in the application of SREP protocol could help detect and assess the centralized pain component in CLBP.
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.