ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
Conditioned Pain Modulation Inter-Site Variability Study: Effect Sizes and Test-Retest Reliability of Two Models.
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a set of psychophysical paradigms that is increasingly used clinically to evaluate descending pain modulation pathways. Impairment is common in chronic pain, suggesting CPM may serve as a mechanistic indicator. However, the lack of protocol standardization and reference data prevents clinical use in individual patients.
methodsWe compared two CPM protocols with different conditioning stimulus intensities, test stimulus types, and interaction timing. We assessed CPM effect size, test-retest reliability and sensitivity to detect loss of descending inhibition.
resultsConditioning with 0°C water led to stronger inhibition of pressure pain threshold (PPT) than conditioning with 7°C water (Cohen's d = 0.52), when tested immediately after conditioning. When tested during conditioning, effects of 7°C water immersion on heat pain sensitivity had similar magnitude (D = 0.53) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.77) as those on PPT (D = 0.54, ICC = 0.73). For all outcomes assessed, 95% confidence intervals (CI) of CPM effect included some facilitation instead of inhibition. The maximum degree of facilitation compatible with normal CPM (upper cutoff of CI) indicates potential sensitivity to detect individual abnormality. This was most favourable for PPT assessed after conditioning with 0°C water (decrease by more than 75 kPa or 14% of baseline PPT).
conclusionsIn conclusion, testing during conditioning stimulation yields medium to large effect sizes and good test-retest reliability. PPT testing immediately after ice water immersion has the narrowest 95% CI and hence offers the potential to generalize CPM assessments beyond group-level differences and compare inhibition among individuals in clinical practice. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Indicating the main aspects where this work adds significantly to existing knowledge in the field, and if appropriate to clinical practice. Simultaneous CPM protocols exhibit large effect sizes but are confounded by divided attention. We recommend a sequential protocol and provide model reference data for abnormal facilitation.
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.