Search

Background and Purpose (aims): Measurement error of intraoral quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been assessed using traditional methods for reliability, such as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Most studies reporting QST reliability focused on assessing one source of measurement error at a time, e.g., inter- or intra-examiner (test-retest) reliabilities and employed two examiners to test inter-examiner reliability. The present study used a complex design with multiple examiners with the aim of assessing the reliability of intraoral QST taking account of multiple sources of error simultaneously., Methods: Four examiners of varied experience assessed 12 healthy participants in two visits separated by 48h. Seven QST procedures to determine sensory thresholds were used: cold detection (CDT), warmth detection (WDT), cold pain (CPT), heat pain (HPT), mechanical detection (MDT), mechanical pain (MPT) and pressure pain (PPT). Mixed linear models were used to estimate variance components for reliability assessment; dependability coefficients were used to simulate alternative test scenarios., Results: Most intraoral QST variability arose from differences between participants (8.8-30.5%), differences between visits within participant (4.6-52.8%), and error (13.3-28.3%). For QST procedures other than CDT and MDT, increasing the number of visits with a single examiner performing the procedures would lead to improved dependability (dependability coefficient ranges: single visit, four examiners=0.12-0.54; four visits, single examiner=0.27-0.68). A wide range of reliabilities for QST procedures, as measured by ICCs, was noted for inter- (0.39-0.80) and intra-examiner (0.10-0.62) variation., Conclusion: Reliability of sensory testing can be better assessed by measuring multiple sources of error simultaneously instead of focusing on one source at a time. In experimental settings, large numbers of participants are needed to obtain accurate estimates of treatment effects based on QST measurements. This is different from clinical use, where variation between persons (the person main effect) is not a concern because clinical measurements are done on a single person., Implications: Future studies assessing sensory testing reliability in both clinical and experimental settings would benefit from routinely measuring multiple sources of error. The methods and results of this study can be used by clinical researchers to improve assessment of measurement error related to intraoral sensory testing. This should lead to improved resource allocation when designing studies that use intraoral quantitative sensory testing in clinical and experimental settings., (Copyright © 2017 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of a questionnaire modified for the identification of intraoral pain with neuropathic characteristics in a clinical orofacial pain sample population., Method and Materials: 136 participants with at least one of four orofacial pain diagnoses (temporomandibular disorders [TMD, n = 41], acute dental pain [ADP, n = 41], trigeminal neuralgia [TN, n = 19], persistent dentoalveolar pain disorder [PDAP, n = 14]) and a group of pain-free controls (n = 21) completed the modified S-LANSS, a previously adapted version of the original questionnaire devised to detected patients suffering from intraoral pain with neuropathic characteristics. Psychometric properties (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], negative predictive value [NPV]) were calculated in two analyses with two different thresholds: (1) Detection of pain with neuropathic characteristics: PDAP + TN were considered positive, and TMD + ADP + controls were considered negative per gold standard (expert opinion). (2) Detection of PDAP: PDAP was considered positive and TMD + ADP were considered negative per gold standard. For both analyses, target values for adequate sensitivity and specificity were defined as ≥ 80%., Results: For detection of orofacial pain with neuropathic characteristics (PDAP + TN), the modified S-LANSS presented with the most optimistic threshold sensitivity of 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34-69), specificity of 70% (95% CI, 60-79), PPV of 35% (95% CI, 22-51), and NPV of 82% (95% CI, 72-89). For detection of PDAP only, with the most optimistic threshold sensitivity was 64% (95% CI, 35-87), specificity 63% (95% CI, 52-74), PPV 23% (95% CI, 11-39) and NPV 91% (95% CI, 81-97)., Conclusion: Based on a priori defined criteria, the modified S-LANSS did not show adequate accuracy to detect intraoral pain with neuropathic characteristics in a clinical orofacial pain sample.

Summary: Background: Endogenous pain modulation (EPM) reflects the brain's ability to modulate incoming nociceptive inputs, and deficient EPM was implicated as a chronic pain mechanism. EPM status has been investigated in temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients with conflicting results, and its relationship with clinical characteristics in this population is not well known. Objectives: (a) Determine EPM responses in chronic TMD cases and pain‐free controls; (b) Derive pain modulation profiles (PMP) based on individual EPM responses; and (c) Categorise clinical characteristics of TMD cases and pain‐free controls based on their individual PMP. Methods: Twenty‐two chronic TMD cases and 17 age‐matched pain‐free controls, all females, were comprehensively characterised regarding clinical characteristics and underwent EPM testing using temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) protocols over the face and hand. Individuals were categorised into PMPs (I‐IV) based on predetermined cut‐off points for TSP and CPM responses. Results: Between‐group comparisons showed similar TSP and CPM responses (P > 0.23) in the face, while TMD cases showed significantly increased TSP (P = 0.04) but similar CPM responses (P > 0.17) in the hand relative to controls. Similar distribution across PMPs and clinical characteristics when categorised into PMPs was found for both groups. Body mass index was associated with increased TSP and reduced CPM in the face in TMD cases. Conclusion: Endogenous pain modulation responses over the face were similar between groups. TMD cases showed increased hand TSP compared to controls while both groups showed no significant hand CPM. PMP classification showed similar results between groups, and further refinement of PMP determination is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain assessments typically depend on self-report of the pain experience. Yet, in individuals with autism spectrum disorders, this can be an unreliable due to communication difficulties. Importantly, observations of behavioral hypo- and hyperresponsivity to pain suggest altered pain sensitivity in autism spectrum disorder. Neuroimaging may provide insight into mechanisms underlying pain behaviors. The neural pain signature reliably responds to painful stimulation and is modulated by other outside regions, affecting the pain experience. In this first functional magnetic resonance imaging study of pain in autism spectrum disorder, we investigated neural responses to pain in 15 adults with autism spectrum disorder relative to a typical comparison group (n = 16). We explored temporal and spatial properties of the neural pain signature and its modulators during sustained heat pain. The two groups had indistinguishable pain ratings and neural pain signature responses during acute pain; yet, we observed strikingly reduced neural pain signature response in autism spectrum disorder during sustained pain and after stimulus offset. The posterior cingulate cortex, a neural pain signature modulating region, mirrored this late signal reduction in autism spectrum disorder. Intact early responses, followed by diminished late responses to sustained pain, may reflect altered pain coping or evaluation in autism spectrum disorder. Evidence of a dichotomous neural response to initial versus protracted pain may clarify the coexistence of both hypo- and hyperresponsiveness to pain in autism spectrum disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abnormal endogenous pain modulation was suggested as a potential mechanism for chronic pain, ie, increased pain facilitation and/or impaired pain inhibition underlying symptoms manifestation. Endogenous pain modulation function can be tested using psychophysical methods such as temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM), which assess pain facilitation and inhibition, respectively. Several studies have investigated endogenous pain modulation function in patients with nonparoxysmal orofacial pain (OFP) and reported mixed results. This study aimed to provide, through a qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the available literature, overall estimates for TSP/CPM responses in patients with OFP relative to controls. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases were searched, and references were screened independently by 2 raters. Twenty-six studies were included for qualitative review, and 22 studies were included for meta-analysis. Traditional meta-analysis and robust variance estimation were used to synthesize overall estimates for standardized mean difference. The overall standardized estimate for TSP was 0.30 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.49; P = 0.002), with moderate between-study heterogeneity (Q [df = 17] = 41.8, P = 0.001; I = 70.2%). Conditioned pain modulation's estimated overall effect size was large but above the significance threshold (estimate = 1.36; 95% confidence interval: -0.09 to 2.81; P = 0.066), with very large heterogeneity (Q [df = 8] = 108.3, P < 0.001; I = 98.0%). Sensitivity analyses did not affect the overall estimate for TSP; for CPM, the overall estimate became significant if specific random-effect models were used or if the most influential study was removed. Publication bias was not present for TSP studies, whereas it substantially influenced CPM's overall estimate. These results suggest increased pain facilitation and trend for pain inhibition impairment in patients with nonparoxysmal OFP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]