No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study
Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is measured by comparing pain induced by a test stimulus with pain induced by the same test stimulus, either during (parallel design) or after (sequential design) the conditioning stimulus. Whether design, conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
PeerJ Inc.
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | PeerJ |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://peerj.com/articles/12330.pdf |
| _version_ | 1827612349023911936 |
|---|---|
| author | Roland R. Reezigt Sjoerd C. Kielstra Michel W. Coppieters Gwendolyne G.M. Scholten-Peeters |
| author_facet | Roland R. Reezigt Sjoerd C. Kielstra Michel W. Coppieters Gwendolyne G.M. Scholten-Peeters |
| author_sort | Roland R. Reezigt |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is measured by comparing pain induced by a test stimulus with pain induced by the same test stimulus, either during (parallel design) or after (sequential design) the conditioning stimulus. Whether design, conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection affect CPM remains unclear. Methods CPM effects were evaluated in healthy participants (N = 89) at the neck, forearm and lower leg using the cold pressor test as the conditioning stimulus. In three separate experiments, we compared the impact of (1) design (sequential versus parallel), (2) conditioning stimulus intensity (VAS 40/100 versus VAS 60/100), and (3) test stimulus selection (single versus dual, i.e., mechanical and thermal). Statistical analyses of the main effect of design (adjusted for order) and experiment were conducted using linear mixed models with random intercepts. Results No significant differences were identified in absolute CPM data. In relative CPM data, a sequential design resulted in a slightly lower CPM effect compared to a parallel design, and only with a mechanical test stimulus at the neck (−6.1%; 95% CI [−10.1 to −2.1]) and lower leg (−5.9%; 95% CI [−11.7 to −0.1]) but not forearm (−4.5%; 95% CI [−9.0 to 0.1]). Conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection did not influence the CPM effect nor the difference in CPM effects derived from parallel versus sequential designs. Conclusions Differences in CPM effects between protocols were minimal or absent. A parallel design may lead to a minimally higher relative CPM effect when using a mechanical test stimulus. The conditioning stimulus intensities assessed in this study and performing two test stimuli did not substantially influence the differences between designs nor the magnitude of the CPM effect. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T08:21:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e5db8f95da9d4ea1b9fb4302c2a7580c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2167-8359 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T08:21:10Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PeerJ |
| spelling | doaj.art-e5db8f95da9d4ea1b9fb4302c2a7580c2023-12-02T21:50:16ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592021-12-019e1233010.7717/peerj.12330No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational studyRoland R. Reezigt0Sjoerd C. Kielstra1Michel W. Coppieters2Gwendolyne G.M. Scholten-Peeters3Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, NetherlandsDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, NetherlandsDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, NetherlandsDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, NetherlandsBackground Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is measured by comparing pain induced by a test stimulus with pain induced by the same test stimulus, either during (parallel design) or after (sequential design) the conditioning stimulus. Whether design, conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection affect CPM remains unclear. Methods CPM effects were evaluated in healthy participants (N = 89) at the neck, forearm and lower leg using the cold pressor test as the conditioning stimulus. In three separate experiments, we compared the impact of (1) design (sequential versus parallel), (2) conditioning stimulus intensity (VAS 40/100 versus VAS 60/100), and (3) test stimulus selection (single versus dual, i.e., mechanical and thermal). Statistical analyses of the main effect of design (adjusted for order) and experiment were conducted using linear mixed models with random intercepts. Results No significant differences were identified in absolute CPM data. In relative CPM data, a sequential design resulted in a slightly lower CPM effect compared to a parallel design, and only with a mechanical test stimulus at the neck (−6.1%; 95% CI [−10.1 to −2.1]) and lower leg (−5.9%; 95% CI [−11.7 to −0.1]) but not forearm (−4.5%; 95% CI [−9.0 to 0.1]). Conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection did not influence the CPM effect nor the difference in CPM effects derived from parallel versus sequential designs. Conclusions Differences in CPM effects between protocols were minimal or absent. A parallel design may lead to a minimally higher relative CPM effect when using a mechanical test stimulus. The conditioning stimulus intensities assessed in this study and performing two test stimuli did not substantially influence the differences between designs nor the magnitude of the CPM effect.https://peerj.com/articles/12330.pdfPain modulationEndogenous pain inhibitionPain measurementPain assessmentCentral pain mechanismsCentral sensitisation |
| spellingShingle | Roland R. Reezigt Sjoerd C. Kielstra Michel W. Coppieters Gwendolyne G.M. Scholten-Peeters No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study PeerJ Pain modulation Endogenous pain inhibition Pain measurement Pain assessment Central pain mechanisms Central sensitisation |
| title | No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study |
| title_full | No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study |
| title_fullStr | No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study |
| title_full_unstemmed | No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study |
| title_short | No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study |
| title_sort | no relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design a cross sectional observational study |
| topic | Pain modulation Endogenous pain inhibition Pain measurement Pain assessment Central pain mechanisms Central sensitisation |
| url | https://peerj.com/articles/12330.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rolandrreezigt norelevantdifferencesinconditionedpainmodulationeffectsbetweenparallelandsequentialtestdesignacrosssectionalobservationalstudy AT sjoerdckielstra norelevantdifferencesinconditionedpainmodulationeffectsbetweenparallelandsequentialtestdesignacrosssectionalobservationalstudy AT michelwcoppieters norelevantdifferencesinconditionedpainmodulationeffectsbetweenparallelandsequentialtestdesignacrosssectionalobservationalstudy AT gwendolynegmscholtenpeeters norelevantdifferencesinconditionedpainmodulationeffectsbetweenparallelandsequentialtestdesignacrosssectionalobservationalstudy |