Investigation of Sensory and Neuropsychological Parameters in Migraine Sufferers: A Cross-Sectional Study with Negative Findings.

INTRODUCTION

Migraine headache not only is associated with high levels of suffering but also represents a considerable socioeconomic challenge. It is linked to various psychological and physiological impairments, including sensorimotor and somatosensory dysfunction, like those observed in other persistent pain syndromes. This study aims to determine whether individuals with high-frequency episodic (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM) exhibit differences in somatosensory perception compared to healthy individuals and to explore potential correlations with neuropsychological features.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional design, we assessed individuals with HFEM or CM (n = 45) and healthy controls (n = 25) using quantitative sensory testing (QST), conditioned pain modulation testing and neuropsychological questionnaires such as the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20).

RESULTS

Data from 45 participants (39 females) with HFEM or CM and a healthy control group of 25 individuals (21 female) were analysed. Median (range) number of monthly headache days of was 12.3 (6) in the migraine group. Statistically significant differences were found only in the assessment of central sensitization (p < 0.0010) but not for QST parameters. Correlations with QST parameters were generally weak, only the wind-up ratio (WUR) showing weak to moderate monotonic associations with both emotion- and somatosensory-associated parameters.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results provided no evidence of significant differences between the migraine and healthy control groups. The lack of significant differences might be attributed to methodological limitations. However, the comprehensive and standardized implementation of QST strictly following the protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS), the selection of robust questionnaires, uniform diagnostic criteria and rigorous statistical analysis represent methodological strengths and support the validity of the results. Nevertheless, these findings, which partly contrast with existing literature, may reflect limitations of the sample and methodology and should be interpreted with caution.