Relationship between quantitative sensory testing and pain or disability in people with spinal pain—A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pain ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 154 (9) ◽  
pp. 1497-1504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Hübscher ◽  
Niamh Moloney ◽  
Andrew Leaver ◽  
Trudy Rebbeck ◽  
James H. McAuley ◽  
...  
BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031861 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Eric Schoth ◽  
Markus Blankenburg ◽  
Julia Wager ◽  
Philippa Broadbent ◽  
Jin Zhang ◽  
...  

IntroductionThis protocol describes the objective and methods of a systematic review of the association between quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures and pain intensity or disability in paediatric chronic pain (PCP). The review will also assess whether the relationship strength is moderated by variables related to the QST method and pain condition; the use of QST in PCP (modalities, outcome measures and anatomical test sites as well as differentiating between pain mechanisms (eg, neuropathic vs nociceptive) and in selecting analgesics); the reliability of QST across the paediatric age range; the ability of QST to differentiate patients with chronic pain from healthy controls; and differences between anatomical test sites.Methods and analysisMedline, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and OpenGrey will be searched. English language studies will be eligible if they recruit a sample aged 6–24 (inclusive) with chronic pain, including primary and secondary pain; apply at least one of the following QST modalities: chemical, electrical, mechanical (subgroups include pressure, punctate/brush and vibratory) or thermal stimulus to measure perception of noxious or innocuous stimuli applied to skin, muscle or joint; use a testing protocol to control for stimulus properties: modality, anatomical site, intensity, duration and sequence. Following title and abstract screening, the full texts of relevant records will be independently assessed by two reviewers. For eligible studies, one reviewer will extract study characteristics and data, and another will check for accuracy. Both will undertake independent quality assessments using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. A qualitative synthesis will be presented with discussion centred around different QST modalities. Where eligible data permit, meta-analyses will be performed separately for different QST modalities using comprehensive meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationReview findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. The study raises no ethical issues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134069.


2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1075-1085 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.K. Suokas ◽  
D.A. Walsh ◽  
D.F. McWilliams ◽  
L. Condon ◽  
B. Moreton ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 885-896
Author(s):  
B.P. Monteiro ◽  
C. Otis ◽  
J.R.E. del Castillo ◽  
R. Nitulescu ◽  
K. Brown ◽  
...  

Pain ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 161 (9) ◽  
pp. 1955-1975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Giannoni-Luza ◽  
Kevin Pacheco-Barrios ◽  
Alejandra Cardenas-Rojas ◽  
Piero F. Mejia-Pando ◽  
Maria A. Luna-Cuadros ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e033276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valter Devecchi ◽  
Alessio Gallina ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan ◽  
Alison B Rushton ◽  
Deborah Falla

IntroductionThe course of spinal pain (neck or low back pain) is often described as episodic and intermittent, with more than one-third of people continuing to experience episodic symptoms 1 year after first onset. Although ongoing neuromuscular adaptations could contribute to recurrent episodes of pain, no systematic review has synthesised evidence of ongoing neuromuscular changes in people with recurrent spinal pain during a period of symptom remission.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-P, the Update of the Cochrane Back and Neck Group guidelines and the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ZETOC, Google Scholar, grey literature sources and key journals will be searched up to September 2019. Observational studies investigating neuromuscular changes in people with recurrent spinal pain during a period of remission will be included. Neuromuscular function will be considered under five outcome domains of muscle activity, spine kinematics, muscle properties, sensorimotor control and neuromuscular performance. Two independent reviewers will search, screen studies, extract data and assess risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Data will be synthesised per outcome domain. Where clinical and methodological homogeneity across studies exists, a random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, results will be synthesised narratively. The overall quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.Ethics and disseminationFindings of this review may aid the identification of factors that could contribute to spinal pain recurrence and aid the development of interventions for secondary prevention aimed at the restoration of optimal neuromuscular function. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019141527.


Pain ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 160 (12) ◽  
pp. 2661-2678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoinette I.M. van Laarhoven ◽  
Jens B. Marker ◽  
Jesper Elberling ◽  
Gil Yosipovitch ◽  
Lars Arendt-Nielsen ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Simon Lafrance ◽  
Jean-Gabriel Lapalme ◽  
Marianne Méquignon ◽  
Carlo Santaguida ◽  
Julio Fernandes ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document