Chen Kexun Kenneth, Rolan Paul, Hutchinson Mark Rowland, de Zoete Rutger Marinus Johannes
School of Allied Health Science and Practice, Faculty of Health and Medical Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
School of Biomedicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Eur J Pain. 2025 Sep;29(8):e70097. doi: 10.1002/ejp.70097.
Temporal summation of pain (TSP) is a dynamic quantitative sensory test reflecting pain facilitation. Variability in TSP paradigms challenges cross-study comparisons and raises concerns about reliability. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the reliability of TSP in healthy and clinical populations.
Four databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies up to July 2024. Risk of bias and study quality were assessed. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria, with data from healthy (n = 12) and clinical (n = 7) populations. TSP was assessed using absolute change (difference between first and last stimuli) and relative change (ratio of first to last). ICCs ranged from -0.31 to 0.97. In healthy participants, between-session reliability was poor (ICC = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.40-0.58, I = 81.4%, 35 estimates, 1208 subjects), while within-session reliability was moderate (ICC = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.61-0.77, I = 91.7%, 28 estimates, 728 subjects). Highest reliability was seen for within-session testing using absolute change (ICC = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74-0.88, I = 0%). In clinical populations, between-session reliability was moderate (ICC = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.44-0.69, I = 80.8%, 13 estimates, 470 subjects); within-session reliability was also moderate (ICC = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.46-0.76, I = 89.6%, 10 estimates, 381 subjects). Study quality ranged from very good to excellent, with bias rated from doubtful to adequate.
TSP demonstrates moderate reliability, influenced by stimulus parameters and population. Small-area mechanical stimuli (e.g., pinprick), tested at 1 Hz using absolute change scores, yield the most reliable results. Further research is needed in clinical populations to better understand TSP mechanisms.
This review suggests that TSP is a reliable measure, with small contact area mechanical stimulus with absolute change calculation method, applied at a rate of 1 Hz, was found to be most reliable. Results highlights the need for standardisation, and consistency in data reporting. While most TSP paradigms were found to have moderate to good reliability, consideration should also be given when translating experimental TSP testing to clinical routine assessment.
PROSPERO number: CRD42024566623.
疼痛的时间总和(TSP)是一种反映疼痛易化作用的动态定量感觉测试。TSP范式的变异性给跨研究比较带来了挑战,并引发了对可靠性的担忧。本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了TSP在健康人群和临床人群中的可靠性。
检索了四个数据库中截至2024年7月的同行评审研究。评估了偏倚风险和研究质量。进行随机效应荟萃分析以估计组内相关系数(ICC)。
22项研究符合纳入标准,包括来自健康人群(n = 12)和临床人群(n = 7)的数据。使用绝对变化(首次和末次刺激之间的差异)和相对变化(首次与末次之比)评估TSP。ICC范围为-0.31至0.97。在健康参与者中,不同测试时段间的可靠性较差(ICC = 0.49,95%CI:0.40 - 0.58,I = 81.4%,35个估计值,1208名受试者),而同一测试时段内的可靠性为中等(ICC = 0.69,95%CI:0.61 - 0.77,I = 91.7%,28个估计值,728名受试者)。使用绝对变化进行同一测试时段内测试时可靠性最高(ICC = 0.81,95%CI:0.74 - 0.88,I = 0%)。在临床人群中,不同测试时段间的可靠性为中等(ICC = 0.57,95%CI:0.44 - 0.69,I = 80.8%,13个估计值,470名受试者);同一测试时段内的可靠性也为中等(ICC = 0.61,95%CI:0.46 - 0.76,I = 89.6%,10个估计值,381名受试者)。研究质量从非常好到优秀不等,偏倚评级从可疑到充分。
TSP显示出中等可靠性,受刺激参数和人群影响。使用绝对变化分数在1Hz频率下测试的小面积机械刺激(如针刺)产生的结果最可靠。临床人群中需要进一步研究以更好地理解TSP机制。
本综述表明TSP是一种可靠的测量方法,发现采用绝对变化计算方法的小接触面积机械刺激,以1Hz的频率应用时最可靠。结果强调了标准化和数据报告一致性的必要性。虽然大多数TSP范式被发现具有中等至良好的可靠性,但在将实验性TSP测试转化为临床常规评估时也应予以考虑。
PROSPERO编号:CRD42024566623。