Suppr超能文献

缓慢重复诱发疼痛作为纤维肌痛中中枢敏化的标志物:与疼痛时间总和相比的诊断准确性和可靠性。

Slowly Repeated Evoked Pain as a Marker of Central Sensitization in Fibromyalgia: Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability in Comparison With Temporal Summation of Pain.

机构信息

From the Department of Psychology (Coba, Galvez-Sánchez, Reyes del Paso), University of Jaén, Spain; and Department of Anesthesiology (Bruehl), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

出版信息

Psychosom Med. 2018 Jul/Aug;80(6):573-580. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000599.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the diagnostic accuracy and test-retest reliability of a novel dynamic evoked pain protocol (slowly repeated evoked pain [SREP]) compared with temporal summation of pain (TSP), a standard index of central sensitization.

METHODS

Thirty-five fibromyalgia (FM) patients and 30 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients completed, in pseudorandomized order, a standard mechanical TSP protocol (10 stimuli of 1-second duration at the thenar eminence using a 300-g monofilament with 1 second interstimulus interval) and the SREP protocol (9 suprathreshold pressure stimuli of 5-second duration applied to the fingernail with a 30-second interstimulus interval). To evaluate reliability for both protocols, they were repeated in a second session 4-7 days later.

RESULTS

Evidence for significant pain sensitization over trials (increasing pain intensity ratings) was observed for SREP in FM (p < .001) but not in RA (p = .35), whereas significant sensitization was observed in both diagnostic groups for the TSP protocol (p < .008). Compared with TSP, SREP demonstrated higher overall diagnostic accuracy (87.7% versus 64.6%), greater sensitivity (0.89 versus 0.57), and greater specificity (0.87 versus 0.73) in discriminating between FM and RA patients. Test-retest reliability of SREP sensitization was good in FM (intraclass correlations = 0.80), and moderate in RA (intraclass correlations = 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

SREP seems to be a dynamic evoked pain index tapping into pain sensitization that allows for greater diagnostic accuracy in identifying FM patients compared with a standard TSP protocol. Further research is needed to study mechanisms underlying SREP and the potential utility of adding SREP to standard pain evaluation protocols.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在检验新型动态诱发疼痛方案(缓慢重复诱发疼痛[SREP])与疼痛时间总和(TSP)(一种中枢敏化的标准指标)相比的诊断准确性和复测信度。

方法

35 例纤维肌痛(FM)患者和 30 例类风湿关节炎(RA)患者以伪随机顺序完成标准机械 TSP 方案(使用 300 克单丝在大鱼际施加 10 次 1 秒持续时间的刺激,刺激间隔为 1 秒)和 SREP 方案(在指甲上施加 9 次 5 秒持续时间的超阈值压力刺激,刺激间隔为 30 秒)。为评估两个方案的可靠性,它们在第二次会议 4-7 天后重复进行。

结果

在 FM 患者中,SREP 在试验过程中表现出明显的疼痛敏化(疼痛强度评分增加)(p <.001),但在 RA 患者中未观察到(p =.35),而在两个诊断组中,TSP 方案均观察到明显的敏化(p <.008)。与 TSP 相比,SREP 在区分 FM 和 RA 患者方面表现出更高的总体诊断准确性(87.7%比 64.6%)、更高的敏感性(0.89 比 0.57)和更高的特异性(0.87 比 0.73)。在 FM 患者中,SREP 敏化的复测信度良好(组内相关系数=0.80),在 RA 患者中为中度(组内相关系数=0.68)。

结论

SREP 似乎是一种动态诱发疼痛指数,可用于检测疼痛敏化,与标准 TSP 方案相比,其在识别 FM 患者方面具有更高的诊断准确性。需要进一步研究来研究 SREP 的潜在机制以及将 SREP 添加到标准疼痛评估方案中的潜在效用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验