Search

Objective: Nerve conduction studies (NCS) require valid reference limits for meaningful interpretation. We aimed to further develop the extrapolated norms (e-norms) method for obtaining NCS reference limits from historical laboratory datasets for children and adults, and to validate it against traditionally derived reference limits., Methods: We compared reference limits obtained by applying a further developed e-norms with reference limits from healthy controls for the age strata's 9-18, 20-44 and 45-60 years old. The control data consisted of 65 healthy children and 578 healthy adults, matched with 1294 and 5628 patients respectively. Five commonly investigated nerves were chosen: The tibial and peroneal motor nerves (amplitudes, conduction velocities, F-waves), and the sural, superficial peroneal and medial plantar sensory nerves (amplitudes, conduction velocities). The datasets were matched by hospital to ensure identical equipment and protocols. The e-norms method was adapted, and reference limit calculation using both ±2 SD (original method) and ±2.5 SD (to compensate for predicted underestimation of population SD by the e-norms method) was compared to control data using ±2 SD. Percentage agreement between e-norms and the traditional method was calculated., Results: On average, the e-norms method (mean ±2 SD) produced slightly stricter reference limits compared to the traditional method. Increasing the e-norms range to mean ±2.5 SD improved the results in children while slightly overcorrecting in the adult group. The average agreement between the two methods was 95 % (±2 SD) and 96 % (±2.5 SD)., Conclusions: The e-norms method yielded slightly stricter reference limits overall than ones obtained through traditional methods; However, much of the difference can be attributed to a few outlying plots where the raters found it difficult to apply e-norms correctly. The two methods disagreed on classification of 4-5% of cases. Our e-norms software is suited to analyze large amounts of raw NCS data; it should further reduce bias and facilitate more accurate ratings., Significance: With small adaptations, the e-norms method adequately replicates traditionally derived reference limits, and is a viable method to produce reference limits from historical datasets., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: Back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Although most back pain cases are acute, 20% of acute pain patients experience chronic back pain symptoms. It is unclear whether acute pain and chronic pain have similar or distinct underlying genetic mechanisms., Objectives: To characterize the molecular and cellular pathways contributing to acute and chronic pain states., Methods: Cross-sectional observational genome-wide association study., Results: A total of 375,158 individuals from the UK Biobank cohort were included in the discovery of genome-wide association study. Of those, 70,633 (19%) and 32,209 (9%) individuals met the definition of chronic and acute back pain, respectively. A total of 355 single nucleotide polymorphism grouped into 13 loci reached the genome-wide significance threshold (5x10 -8 ) for chronic back pain, but none for acute. Of these, 7 loci were replicated in the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) cohort (19,760 chronic low back pain cases and 28,674 pain-free controls). Single nucleotide polymorphism heritability was 4.6% (P=1.4x10 -78 ) for chronic back pain and 0.81% (P=1.4x10-8) for acute back pain. Similar differences in heritability estimates between acute and chronic back pain were found in the HUNT cohort: 3.4% (P=0.0011) and 0.6% (P=0.851), respectively. Pathway analyses, tissue-specific heritability enrichment analyses, and epigenetic characterization suggest a substantial genetic contribution to chronic but not acute back pain from the loci predominantly expressed in the central nervous system., Conclusion: Chronic back pain is substantially more heritable than acute back pain. This heritability is mostly attributed to genes expressed in the brain., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

In a recently published genome-wide association study (GWAS) chronic back pain was associated with three loci; SOX5, CCDC26/GSDMC and DCC . This GWAS was based on a heterogeneous sample of back pain disorders, and it is unknown whether these loci are of clinical relevance for low back pain (LBP) with persistent radiculopathy. Thus, we examine if LBP with radiculopathy 12 months after an acute episode of LBP with radiculopathy is associated with the selected single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs); SOX5 rs34616559, CCDC26/GSDMC rs7833174 and DCC rs4384683. In this prospective cohort study, subjects admitted to a secondary health care institution due to an acute episode of LBP with radiculopathy, reported back pain, leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were genotyped and followed up at 12 months ( n = 338). Kruskal-Wallis H test showed no association between the SNPs and back pain, leg pain or ODI. In conclusion, LBP with radiculopathy 12 months after an acute episode of LBP with radiculopathy, is not associated with the selected SNPs; SOX5 rs34616559, CCDC26/GSDMC rs7833174 and DCC rs4384683. This absent or weak association suggests that the SNPs previously associated with chronic back pain are not useful as prognostic biomarkers for LBP with persistent radiculopathy., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Lie, Pedersen, Heuch, Winsvold, Gjerstad, Hasvik, Nygaard, Grotle, Matre, Zwart and Nilsen.)

Objective: Quantitative thermal testing (QTT) is a psychophysical assessment method of small nerve fibers that relies on reference material to assess function. Normal limits for within-subject comparisons of thermal thresholds are scarce, and their association with age, height and sex is not fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to investigate the normal limits for distal-proximal- and contralateral homologous comparisons of thermal thresholds with QTT, and their association with age, sex or height., Methods: Fifty healthy volunteers ages 20-79 participated in the experiment. Cold detection thresholds (CDT), warm detection thresholds (WDT), heat pain thresholds (HPT), and cold pain thresholds (CPT) were measured bilaterally at the thenar eminence, anterior thigh, distal medial leg and foot dorsum. Sample normal limits were calculated as (mean) ± 2 SD., Results: Forty-eight subjects were included in the analysis. CPT was excluded from all analyses due to a large floor-effect. Sample normal limits for side-differences ranged from 1.8 to 7.2 °C for CDT, 2.4-6.8 °C for WDT and 3.2-4.0 °C for HPT, depending on anatomical site. For distal-proximal comparisons, sample normal limits ranged from 4.0 to 8.7 °C for CDT, 6.0-14.0 °C for WDT and 4.2-9.0 °C for HPT, depending on the pairs compared. Age was associated with side-differences for CDT in the thenar eminences (p < 0.001) and distal medial legs (p < 0.002), and with 11 of 18 distal-proximal comparisons (p < 0.01)., Conclusions: The normal limits for distal-proximal- and contralateral homologous thermal thresholds were wide, and thus of limited use in a clinical setting, although the reported values may be somewhat inflated by low sample-size and consequent age-pooling. Age, but not sex or height, was associated with contralateral differences in CDT in the thenar eminences and distal medial legs, and with most distal-proximal differences., Significance: Due to wide normal limits, we advise caution when utilizing relative comparisons of thermal thresholds for diagnostic purposes., Competing Interests: None., (© 2021 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: The underlying mechanisms for individual differences in experimental pain are not fully understood, but genetic susceptibility is hypothesized to explain some of these differences. In the present study we focus on three genetic variants important for modulating experimental pain related to serotonin (SLC6A4 5-HTTLPR/rs25531 A>G), catecholamine (COMT rs4680 Val158Met) and opioid (OPRM1 rs1799971 A118G) signaling. We aimed to investigate associations between each of the selected genetic variants and individual differences in experimental pain., Methods: In total 356 subjects (232 low back pain patients and 124 healthy volunteers) were genotyped and assessed with tests of heat pain threshold, pressure pain thresholds, heat pain tolerance, conditioned pain modulation (CPM), offset analgesia, temporal summation and secondary hyperalgesia. Low back pain patients and healthy volunteers did not differ in regards to experimental test results or allelic frequencies, and were therefore analyzed as one group. The associations were tested using analysis of variance and the Kruskal-Wallis test., Results: No significant associations were observed between the genetic variants (SLC6A4 5-HTTLPR/rs25531 A>G, COMT rs4680 Val158Met and OPRM1 rs1799971 A118G) and individual differences in experimental pain (heat pain threshold, pressure pain threshold, heat pain tolerance, CPM, offset analgesia, temporal summation and secondary hyperalgesia)., Conclusions: The selected pain-associated genetic variants were not associated with individual differences in experimental pain. Genetic variants well known for playing central roles in pain perception failed to explain individual differences in experimental pain in 356 subjects. The finding is an important contribution to the literature, which often consists of studies with lower sample size and one or few experimental pain assessments., (© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Background and aims Recovery in patients hospitalised with severe sciatica is unpredictable. Prognostic tools to aid clinicians in the early identification of patients at risk of developing chronic sciatic pain are warranted. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a psychophysical measure of the endogenous pain modulatory pathways. Several studies have suggested CPM as a potentially important predictive biomarker for the development of chronic pain. The aim of the study was to determine whether CPM effect in patients still suffering from leg pain 6 weeks after hospital discharge for severe sciatica is associated with persistent leg pain at 12 months. A potential association would suggest that measuring CPM effect could be a valuable prognostic tool in the hospital management of sciatica. Methods A prospective cohort study in which CPM effect was measured 6 weeks after hospital discharge following an acute admission with sciatica as the main complaint. The impact of CPM effect on the outcome was analysed using logistic regression. The outcome measured was self-reported leg pain score of ≥1 in the past week on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) at 12 months post discharge. Results A total of 111 patients completed the entire study, 51 of whom received non-randomised surgical treatment. Crude and confounder adjusted analyses showed no significant association between CPM effect and leg-pain measured at 12 months, crude Odds Ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.7-1.1, p = 0.23. Conclusions Our results suggest that CPM assessment has limited prognostic value for the long-term outcome in severe sciatica when measured 6 weeks after hospital discharge. Implications The present study adds important knowledge concerning the limited clinical use of late CPM testing in sciatica patients. The heterogeneity in patients, the wide range of treatments received and a generally favourable outcome are factors that may affect CPM's clinical value as a prognostic factor for severe sciatica.

Background: Assessing conditioning pain modulation (CPM) with spinal reflex measures may produce more objective and stable CPM effects than using psychophysical measures. The aim of the study was to compare the CPM effect and test-retest reliability between a psychophysical protocol with thermal test-stimulus and a spinal reflex protocol with electrical test-stimulus., Methods: Twenty-five healthy volunteers participated in two identical experiments separated by minimum 1 week. The thermal test-stimulus was a constant heat stimulation of 120 s on the subjects' forearm with continuous ratings of pain intensity on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. The electrical test-stimulus was repeated electrical stimulation on the arch of the foot for 120 s, which elicited a nociceptive withdrawal reflex recorded from the anterior tibial muscle. Conditioning stimulus was a 7°C water bath. Differences in the magnitude and test-retest reliability were investigated with repeated-measures analysis of variance and by relative and absolute reliability indices., Results: The CPM effect was -46% and 4.5% during the thermal and electrical test-stimulus (p < 0.001) respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.5 and 0.4 was found with the electrical and thermal test-stimulus respectively. Wide limits of agreement were found for both the electrical (-3.4 to 3.8 mA) and the thermal test-stimulus (-3.2 to 3.6 cm)., Conclusions: More pronounced CPM effect was demonstrated when using a psychophysical protocol with thermal test-stimulus compared to a spinal reflex protocol with electrical test-stimulus. Fair relative reliability and poor absolute reliability (due to high intraindividual variability) was found in both protocols., Significance: The large difference in CPM effect between the two protocols suggests that the CPM effect relates to pain perception rather than nociception on the spinal level. Due to poor absolute intrarater reliability, we recommend caution and further research before using any of the investigated CPM protocols in clinical decision making on an individual level., (© 2019 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Introduction: The interest in conditioned pain modulation (CPM) as a clinical tool for measuring endogenously induced analgesia is increasing. There is, however, large variation in the CPM methodology, hindering comparison of results across studies. Research comparing different CPM protocols is needed in order to obtain a standardized test paradigm., Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess whether a protocol with phasic heat stimuli as test-stimulus is preferable to a protocol with tonic heat stimulus as test-stimulus., Methods: In this experimental crossover study, we compared 2 CPM protocols with different test-stimulus; one with tonic test-stimulus (constant heat stimulus of 120-second duration) and one with phasic test-stimuli (3 heat stimulations of 5 seconds duration separated by 10 seconds). Conditioning stimulus was a 7°C water bath in parallel with the test-stimulus. Twenty-four healthy volunteers were assessed on 2 occasions with minimum 1 week apart. Differences in the magnitude and test-retest reliability of the CPM effect in the 2 protocols were investigated with repeated-measures analysis of variance and by relative and absolute reliability indices., Results: The protocol with tonic test-stimulus induced a significantly larger CPM effect compared to the protocol with phasic test-stimuli ( P < 0.001). Fair and good relative reliability was found with the phasic and tonic test-stimuli, respectively. Absolute reliability indices showed large intraindividual variability from session to session in both protocols., Conclusion: The present study shows that a CPM protocol with a tonic test-stimulus is preferable to a protocol with phasic test-stimuli. However, we emphasize that one should be cautious to use the CPM effect as biomarker or in clinical decision making on an individual level due to large intraindividual variability., Competing Interests: Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.