ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Conditioned pain modulation and nociception measured by pain-related evoked potentials in patients with polyneuropathy.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Aim of the study was to assess alterations in nociception and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in polyneuropathy (PNP) patients depending on the presence of pain and the pattern of affected nerve fibers. Methods: Pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) after painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) were recorded in 44 PNP patients and 19 healthy controls (HC) with stimulation via concentric surface electrodes. Using the same electrodes for electrical stimulation as test stimulus (TS) and cold water as the conditioned stimulus (CS), we additionally assessed the CPM effects based on changes in pain intensities and amplitudes of evoked potentials elicited by PCES. Subgroup analysis included painless, painful, small (SFN), mixed (MFN), and large (LFN) fiber neuropathies. Results: During the PREP procedure, patients required higher stimulus intensities compared to HC and reported stronger pain. SFN patients had the highest pain scores despite similar stimulus intensities as in HC. N1-latencies of PREP were longer in LFN, N1P1-amplitudes of PREP did not differ. During the CPM testing, the CS induced a significant decrease in pain ratings in HC and painful PNP. The CPM-effects were similar between groups. N1P1-amplitudes for PCES were lower in patients throughout the CPM assessment. Patients with painful MFN and SFN required lower TS-intensities. Discussion: The CPM effects in painful PNP and HC were similar, despite hints for sensitization in CPM and PREP-parameters, especially in small fiber involvement. Amplitude changes during CPM-procedure were independent of pain. Deafferentation influences both PREP and CPM parameters, such as N1-latencies or N1P1-amplitudes, but not the CPM-effect itself.
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.