Personality Factors in the Explanation of Sex Differences in Pain Catastrophizing and Response to Experimental Pain

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 275-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beverly E. Thorn ◽  
Kristi L. Clements ◽  
L. Charles Ward ◽  
Kim E. Dixon ◽  
Brian C. Kersh ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
pp. 234-261
Author(s):  
Seymour B. Sarason ◽  
Kenneth S. Davidson ◽  
Frederick F. Lighthall ◽  
Richard R. Waite ◽  
Britton K. Ruebush

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. S50 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Awali ◽  
R. Nevsimal ◽  
S. O'Melia ◽  
A. Alsouhibani ◽  
M. Hoeger Bement

2006 ◽  
Vol 291 (2) ◽  
pp. R245-R256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Sherman ◽  
Linda LeResche

The findings on sex differences in human experimental pain research are inconsistent. One possible factor contributing to the inconsistent findings is the female hormonal cycle, as hormone levels may affect pain sensitivity. A number of studies suggest that women's responses to experimentally evoked pain vary across the menstrual cycle. However, at least an equal number of studies suggest a lack of variability. The purpose of this article is to review the literature with emphasis on what we believe could be the reasons for the inconsistent findings, namely, differences in populations sampled, timing of experimental sessions across the menstrual cycle, and nomenclature used to identify the time (phases) in the cycle when measurements were done, nature of the pain stimuli chosen, and outcomes measured. These inconsistencies and other methodological problems associated with most experimental pain studies make it difficult to draw inferences from this literature. For the science to improve, replication of significant findings using standardized timing of sessions, pain stimulus procedures, outcomes, and hormonal assessment is necessary.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 563-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Pence Forsythe ◽  
Beverly Thorn ◽  
Melissa Day ◽  
Grace Shelby

Pain ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 156 (3) ◽  
pp. 514-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zina Trost ◽  
Eric Strachan ◽  
Michael Sullivan ◽  
Tine Vervoort ◽  
Ally R. Avery ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e78663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob M. Vigil ◽  
Lauren N. Rowell ◽  
Simone Chouteau ◽  
Alexandre Chavez ◽  
Elisa Jaramillo ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadas Nahman-Averbuch ◽  
Ian A. Boggero ◽  
Benjamin M. Hunter ◽  
Hannah Pickerill ◽  
James L. Peugh ◽  
...  

Psychological factors, such as anxiety, depression, and pain catastrophizing, may affect how healthy individuals experience experimental pain. However, current literature puts forth contradictory results, possibly due to differing study methodologies, such as the type of psychophysical measure or survey. To better understand such results, this paper analyzed the relationships between psychological factors and experimental pain outcomes across eight different studies (total n= 595) conducted in different populations of healthy adult and adolescent participants. Analyses were conducted with and without controlling for sex, age, and race. Each study was analyzed separately and as part of an aggregate analysis. Even without correction for multiple comparisons, only a few significant relationships were found for the individual studies. Controlling for demographic factors had minimal effect on the results. Importantly, even the few statistically significant models showed relatively small effect sizes; psychological factors explained no more than 20% of the variability in experimental pain sensitivity of healthy individuals. The aggregate analyses revealed relationships between anxiety and PPT / cold pain ratings and between pain catastrophizing and PPT. Sample size calculations based on the aggregate analyses indicated that several hundred participants would be required to correctly detect relationships between these psychological factors and pain measures. These overall negative findings suggest that anxiety, depression, and pain catastrophizing in healthy individuals may not be meaningfully related to experimental pain outcomes. Furthermore, positive findings in the literature may be subject to small group effects and publication bias towards positive findings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document