Comparing test-retest reliability and magnitude of conditioned pain modulation using different combinations of test and conditioning stimuli
Comparing test-retest reliability and magnitude of conditioned pain modulation using different combinations of test and conditioning stimuli
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/08990220.2016.1229178
复制
发表时间：
2016-09-01
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
Nielsen, L. Arendt
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Imai, Y.;Petersen, K. K.;Nielsen, L. Arendt
本研究旨在通过应用不同的测试刺激（TS）和条件刺激（CS）来比较条件痛调制（CPM）的可靠性和幅度。26名健康男性参与者参加了两次相同的研究。在每次会话中，在CS（冷加压试验（CPT）或袖带痛觉测定）之前和期间应用四种TS（电、热、手持和袖带压力痛觉测定）。以45分钟的间隔重复相同的程序，但使用另一个CS。测量5个阈值，包括4个TS的4个疼痛检测阈值和袖带TS的疼痛耐受阈值（袖带PTT）。计算组内相关系数（ICC（3，1））和变异系数（CV）作为可靠性指标。所有组合CS前和CS期间TS的可靠性均良好（ICC：0.60-0.96，CV：2.2-22.9%），但CPM效果的可靠性不同（ICC：0.04-0.53，CV：63.6-503.9%）。最可靠的组合被认为是手持式压力疼痛阈值与CPT（ICC：0.49，CV：63.6%）和袖带压力疼痛阈值与CPT（ICC：0.44，CV：107.6%）。除了电和热痛阈值与袖带CS的组合外，所有组合均发现了显著的CPM效应，这表明CPM机制的新分类。在进一步的研究中，手持压力和热痛阈值与CPT的组合将提供最小的样本量来检测CPM的显著变化。提供和比较ICC和CV有助于设计进一步的临床试验。
This study aimed to compare the reliability and magnitude of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) by applying different test stimuli (TS) and conditioning stimuli (CS). Twenty-six healthy male participants were recruited in the study of two identical sessions. In each session, four TS (electrical, heat, handheld, and cuff pressure algometry) were applied before and during CS (cold pressor test (CPT) or cuff algometry). The same procedure was repeated with 45-min intervals, but with the other CS. Five thresholds were measured including four pain detection thresholds from four TS and pain tolerance threshold from cuff TS (cuff PTT). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC (3,1)) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated as measures of reliability. The reliability of TS before and during CS was good for all combinations (ICC: 0.60-0.96, CV: 2.2-22.9%), but the reliability of the CPM effect varied (ICC: 0.04-0.53, CV: 63.6-503.9%). The most reliable combinations were considered to be the handheld pressure pain threshold with CPT (ICC: 0.49, CV: 63.6%) and the cuff pressure pain threshold with CPT (ICC: 0.44, CV: 107.6%). Significant CPM effects were found for all combinations, except the combinations of electrical and heat pain thresholds with cuff CS, which indicates the novel classification of the CPM mechanism. The combinations of handheld pressure and heat pain threshold with CPT would provide the minimum sample size to detect the significant CPM changes in further studies. It is beneficial to provide and compare both ICC and CV to design further clinical trials.