ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
Modality and Calculation Method Influence Conditioned Pain Modulation Outcomes-An International Multisite Study.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a human surrogate marker reflecting the net efficacy of descending noxious inhibitory and facilitatory control systems, but substantial variability exists. This multicenter study examined (1) associations between heat- and pressure-based CPM outcomes, (2) associations between relative and absolute CPM assessments within each pain sensitivity modality, and (3) differences in CPM effects across three countries. METHODOLOGY: A total of 103 participants were recruited from Denmark (n = 32), the Netherlands (n = 40), and Israel (n = 31). CPM was assessed using pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and tonic heat as test stimuli, respectively, with the cold pressor test as the conditioning stimulus. The CPM effect was calculated as absolute and relative changes during the conditioning stimulus compared with baseline. CPM responders were defined as having a CPM larger than the lower bounds of the CPM effect's 95% confidence interval.
resultsNo correlations between heat- and pressure-based CPM outcomes were found using either absolute or relative calculations. In contrast, absolute and relative CPM effects were strongly correlated within the heat (r = 0.816, p < 0.001) and pressure (r = 0.863, p < 0.001) modalities. CPM responder classification was also not associated between pressure and heat test stimuli. Relative pressure CPM differed between countries (p = 0.009), whereas the remaining CPM outcomes did not.
conclusionUsing a standardized protocol across three international centers, the present findings indicate that pressure- and heat-based CPM outcomes may not be directly comparable, with significant between-country differences observed only for relative pressure CPM. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This multicenter study shows that conditioned pain modulation depends on both the type of test stimulus and how it is quantified. The findings indicate that CPM may be a more complex phenomenon and that results obtained using heat and pressure test stimuli are not directly comparable, challenging the assumption that CPM is interchangeable across methods. This methodological difference may help explain inconsistencies across previous studies. Furthermore, the data suggest that absolute pressure CPM and relative heat CPM provide more stable measures for future research.
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.