Temporal stability and responsiveness of a conditioned pain modulation test

Abstract Objectives Conditioned pain modulation is a commonly used quantitative sensory test, measuring endogenous pain control. The temporal stability of the test is questioned, and there is a lack of agreement on the effect of different pain conditions on the conditioned pain modulation response. Thus, an investigation of the temporal stability of a conditioned pain modulation test among patients suffering from persistent or recurrent neck pain is warranted. Further, an investigation into the difference between patients experiencing a clinically important improvement in pain and those not experiencing such an improvement will aid the understanding between changes in pain and the stability of the conditioned pain modulation test. Methods This study is based on a randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of home stretching exercises and spinal manipulative therapy vs. home stretching exercises alone. As no difference was found between the interventions, all participants were studied as a prospective cohort in this study, investigating the temporal stability of a conditioned pain modulation test. The cohort was also divided into responders with a minimally clinically important improvement in pain and those not experiencing such an improvement. Results Stable measurements of conditioned pain modulation were observed for all independent variables, with a mean change in individual CPM responses of 0.22 from baseline to one week with a standard deviation of 1.34, and −0.15 from the first to the second week with a standard deviation of 1.23. An Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC3 – single, fixed rater) for CPM across the three time points yielded a coefficient of 0.54 (p<0.001). Conclusions Patients with persistent or recurrent neck pain had stable CPM responses over a 2 week course of treatment irrespective of clinical response.

[1]  M. Curatolo,et al.  Reliability of conditioned pain modulation in healthy individuals and chronic pain patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2022, Scandinavian journal of pain.

[2]  Andreas Eklund,et al.  The effect of spinal manipulative therapy and home stretching exercises on heart rate variability in patients with persistent or recurrent neck pain: a randomized controlled trial , 2021, Chiropractic & Manual Therapies.

[3]  Andreas Eklund,et al.  The effect of two weeks of spinal manipulative therapy and home stretching exercises on pain and disability in patients with persistent or recurrent neck pain; a randomized controlled trial , 2021, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[4]  R. Ruscheweyh,et al.  Inter-Individual Differences Explain More Variance in Conditioned Pain Modulation Than Age, Sex and Conditioning Stimulus Intensity Combined , 2021, Brain sciences.

[5]  Kelly M. Naugle,et al.  Test-Retest Instability of Temporal Summation and Conditioned Pain Modulation Measures in Older Adults. , 2020, Pain medicine.

[6]  M. Carrillo-de-la-Peña,et al.  Conditioned pain modulation as biomarker of chronic pain: a systematic review of its concurrent validity. , 2019, Pain.

[7]  Andreas Eklund,et al.  The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on heart rate variability and pain in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial , 2019, Trials.

[8]  M. Teixeira,et al.  Not just a matter of pain intensity: Effects of three different conditioning stimuli on conditioned pain modulation effects , 2018, Neurophysiologie Clinique.

[9]  R. Adams,et al.  The long-term reliability of static and dynamic quantitative sensory testing in healthy individuals , 2017, Pain.

[10]  K. Maluf,et al.  Adaptations in Evoked Pain Sensitivity and Conditioned Pain Modulation after Development of Chronic Neck Pain , 2017, BioMed research international.

[11]  R. Treede,et al.  Conditioned pain modulation in patients with nonspecific chronic back pain with chronic local pain, chronic widespread pain, and fibromyalgia , 2017, Pain.

[12]  C. D. Mørch,et al.  Comparing test–retest reliability and magnitude of conditioned pain modulation using different combinations of test and conditioning stimuli , 2016, Somatosensory & motor research.

[13]  D. Yarnitsky,et al.  Reliability of conditioned pain modulation: a systematic review , 2016, Pain.

[14]  L. O’Neill,et al.  Improving QST Reliability--More Raters, Tests, or Occasions? A Multivariate Generalizability Study. , 2015, The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society.

[15]  L. Arendt-Nielsen,et al.  Is the Conditioned Pain Modulation Paradigm Reliable? A Test-Retest Assessment Using the Nociceptive Withdrawal Reflex , 2014, PloS one.

[16]  R. Landau,et al.  Temporal stability of conditioned pain modulation in healthy women over four menstrual cycles at the follicular and luteal phases , 2013, PAIN®.

[17]  M. Martel,et al.  Sex differences in the stability of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) among patients with chronic pain. , 2013, Pain medicine.

[18]  Peter J McNair,et al.  Conditioned pain modulation in populations with chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2012, The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society.

[19]  D. Yarnitsky,et al.  A psychophysical study of endogenous analgesia: The role of the conditioning pain in the induction and magnitude of conditioned pain modulation , 2011, European journal of pain.

[20]  E. Charlton Ethical guidelines for pain research in humans. Committee on Ethical Issues of the International Association for the Study of Pain. , 1995, Pain.

[21]  Anthony H. Dickenson,et al.  Diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC). II. Lack of effect on non-convergent neurones, supraspinal involvement and theoretical implications , 1979, PAIN.

[22]  Anthony H. Dickenson,et al.  Diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC). I. Effects on dorsal horn convergent neurones in the rat , 1979, PAIN.