Search

The subjective nature of pain and the lack of a gold standard for objective measurement hinders effective assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. Some individuals, such as professional dancers, are better in assessing and reporting bodily sensations. This observational study aimed to assess whether dancers report their pain less variably, than other people do. After consenting, subjects completed the focused analgesia selection test (FAST), which assesses subjects’ variability of pain reports. FAST outcomes, ICC and R2 reflect the magnitude of variability of pain reports observed. In addition, subjects underwent a taste task, which similarly assesses variability of tastes (salty and sweet) intensity reports and completed the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness questionnaire. Thirty-three professional dancers and 33 healthy aged-matched controls were recruited. The dancers exhibited less variability of pain reports then controls (P = .013), but not in case of tastes-reports. Years of practice was positively correlated with pain reporting variability (r = .447, P = .009, and r = .380, P = .029; for FAST ICC and R2, respectively). Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness subscores correlated with pain reporting variability: R2 and ICC with emotional awareness (r = .260, P = .040, and r = .274, P = .030, respectively), and R2 with trusting [r = .254, P = .044]). Perspective The difference between dancers and controls in the magnitude of variability of pain reports is probably due to the dancers’ extensive training, which focuses on attention to body signals. Our results suggest that training can improve subjective pain reports, which are essential for quality clinical care.

Objective Current analgesic treatments for phantom pain are not optimal. One well-accepted yet limited nonpharmacological option is mirror therapy, which is thought to counterbalance abnormal plasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging approach believed to affect the membrane potential and activity threshold of cortical neurons. tDCS analgesic effectiveness, however, is mild and short, rendering it a noneffective stand-alone treatment. This study aimed to assess if a combination of mirror therapy with tDCS results in a superior analgesic effect as compared with mirror therapy alone in patients suffering from phantom pain due to recent amputation. Design Following ethical approval, eligible patients provided informed consent and were randomly assigned to a study treatment group that continued for 2 weeks (once daily): 1) mirror therapy; 2) mirror therapy and sham tDCS; or 3) mirror therapy and tDCS. Assessments were done before treatment; at the end of treatment weeks 1 and 2; and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months following treatment. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity. Secondary measures were derived from the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Brief Pain Inventory. Results Thirty patients were recruited, and 29 patients completed the study. Three months following treatment, pain intensity was significantly (P Conclusions Combining tDCS with mirror therapy results in a robust long-lasting analgesic effect. These encouraging findings may contribute to the understanding of the underlying mechanisms of phantom pain.

Objective: Accurate assessment of patients' pain is an essential part of adequate analgesic treatment. Although reporting pain is a complex task, limited-to-no instructions are provided to pediatric patients regarding this process. Our goal in this randomized parallel-group clinical trial (Clinicaltrial.gov study protocol number NCT04306679) was to evaluate if a training program designed to improve children's ability to understand and use pain scales in a post-surgical setting would affect their pain scores.Methods: Eligible children (aged 8–17), hospitalized for elective surgery and their parents were randomized into two groups. Pre-surgery the intervention group underwent a multi-media program aimed to teach and train how to report pain. The control group received standard pre-surgical instructions. Post-surgery, the children reported their pain on 4 pain scales. The primary outcome was the concordance between children's pain intensity scores reported on four pain scales, both in terms of within-child standard deviation and absolute difference.Results: Ninety-six children met inclusion criteria and completed the study. The trained subjects' pain reports had significantly (p = 0.002) lower within-subject standard deviation (0.41 ± 0.31) than the control group (0.67 ± 0.46). In line, regarding absolute difference, the concordance of children's pain reports was twice better in the trained group (mean difference of 0.43 ± 0.40) than in the control group (0.88 ± 0.70) (p < 0.001).Discussion: Our results suggests that children's ability to report pain is a skill that can be improved. Future studies should test the potential clinical impacts of educational interventions aimed to improve pain assessment in children and adults.

Included in their extensive duties caring for hospitalized children, nurses are the frontline for pain assessment and treatment. Research has found that when nurses' assessments are compared with independent reports by the children or their parents, there are often differences. However, no studies have considered the contribution of analgesic medication consumption to this difference.The aim of this study, was to assess the concordance between the pain scores recorded independently by nurses, children, and their parents both before and 1 h after analgesic consumption.The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04306679) and was conducted in a post-operative inpatient facility. Following surgery, at first request of analgesic, the clinical nurses recorded the child's pain, as part of routine clinical practice. Within 10 min, the child recorded their pain level in a pain diary. At the same time, the parents separately reported their assessment of their child's pain. This process was repeated again 1 h later, when the nurses, as part of the clinical routine, recorded the children's level of post-medication pain.Forty-seven children ages 8-17 hospitalized for elective surgery in the General Pediatric Surgery, Orthopedics, Ear-Nose-Throat (ENT), and Oral and Maxillofacial (OM) Departments, and their parents, were included in the current report.The mean pain scores reported by the children were significantly higher than those reported by the nurses, both before (5.77±2.51 vs. 3.90±3.12 [mean ±SD], p0.001) and 1 h after (3.37±2.48 vs. 0.92±2.08, p0.001) analgesic consumption. No significant differences were found either before or after analgesic consumption in the NPS reported by the child and parent. Agreement between the NPS scores reported by the child and nurses was good before (ICC = 0.754, p0.001) and only moderate 1 h after (ICC = 0.504, p = 0.017) analgesic consumption. Similarly, agreement between the NPS scores reported by the child and parents was good before (ICC = 0.855, p0.001) and only moderate 1 h after (ICC = 0.722, p0.001) analgesic consumption.While self-report measures remain the gold standard for pediatric pain care, the results of this study suggest that after analgesic administration, agreement between children's and nurses' assessments, and between children's and parents' assessments of pain deteriorated. Our results further confirm that proxy assessments recorded by parents are closer to their children's assessments than are those of nurses and should consequently be preferred especially after analgesic consumption.

Small fiber polyneuropathy (SFPN) is associated with a variety of clinical conditions. Common to these conditions is the deviation from healthy physiological homeostatic balance, which hinders small fiber neurons viability, resulting in their damage. The most common cause for SFPN in the western world is diabetes, followed by a long list of other risk-factors, some are age-related. Accumulating evidence suggests that in young patients a leading cause (up-to 50% of cases) is autoimmune-related. A variety of symptoms can be seen in SFPN. Commonly, first to appear are sensory symptoms in the extremities. Autonomic symptoms can then join, or even be the presenting symptoms. This sensory-autonomic combination can have a dramatic mal-effect on the patient's quality of life. Diagnosis is based primarily on skin biopsy and/or Autonomic-Functional-Testing. Often, in cases where no etiology is identified, EMG is normal and the skin biopsy/autonomic testing is not performed, clinicians tend to incorrectly diagnose a non-organic situation. Correct and preferably early diagnosis is of essence since peripheral fibers can recover if the disease pathophysiological factor is removed, leading to less suffering and improved quality of life of patients.

ObjectiveTo characterize the pain-related somatosensory and psychological presentation of very early acute patients with a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).MethodsPatients with an mTBI participated in a prospective observational study undergoing clinical, psychophysic, and psychological assessment within 72 hours after the accident. Healthy controls underwent similar protocol.ResultsOne hundred acute patients with an mTBI (age 36 ± 12.5 [SD] years, range 19–67 years, 42 women) and 80 healthy controls (age 43 ± 14.3 years, range 24–74 years, 40 women) participated. Patients with an mTBI demonstrated a pronociceptive psychophysic response in most tests such as less efficient pressure-pain threshold–conditioned pain modulation (0.19 ±0.19±.09 vs. 0.91±.10 kg, p < 0.001) and lower temperature needed to elicit a Pain50 response (44.72 ± 0.26°C vs 46.41 ± 0.30°C, p < 0.001). Their psychophysic findings correlated with clinical pain measures, e.g., Pain50 temperature and mean head (r = −0.21, p = 0.045) and neck (r = −0.26, p = 0.011) pain. The pain-catastrophizing magnification subscale was the only psychological variable to show a difference from the controls, while no significant correlations were found between any psychological measures and the clinical or psychophysic pain measures.ConclusionsThere appears to be a dichotomy between somatosensory and psychological findings in the very early acute post-mTBI stage; while the first is altered and is associated with the clinical picture, the second is unchanged. In the context of the ongoing debate on the pathophysiologic nature of the post-mTBI syndrome, our findings support its “physical” basis, free of mental influence, at least in the short time window after the injury.

Previous studies have shown a robust correlation between variability of clinical pain scores and responsiveness to placebo (but not active drug) in pain studies, but explanations for these relationships are lacking. We investigated this further by assessing relationship between the Focused Analgesia Selection Test (FAST), a psychophysical method that quantifies pain reporting variability in response to experimental stimuli, variability of daily clinical pain scores as captured using diary, and response to treatment in the context of a randomized controlled crossover trial of naproxen vs placebo in knee osteoarthritis. Evoked pain using the Staircase-Evoked Pain Procedure served as the primary efficacy endpoint. Variability of daily pain scores and the FAST were assessed at baseline. Fifty-five subjects completed the study and were included in the analyses. Our results indicated a statistically significant, moderate linear relationship between variability of clinical and experimental pain reports (r = -0.416, P = 0.004). Both correlated with the placebo response (r = 0.393, P = 0.004; r =-0.371, P = 0.009; respectively), but only the FAST predicted the treatment difference between naproxen and placebo, as demonstrated both in a regression model (P = 0.002, Beta = 0.456, t = 3.342) and in a receiver operating characteristic curve (0.721) analysis. Our results extend previous findings to include a correlation between experimental pain variability and the placebo response and suggest that experimental pain variability is a better predictor of patients who respond preferentially to drug over placebo. A theoretical model unifying these observations is proposed, and practical implications are discussed.

Purpose: The subjective nature of pain assessment and its large variance negatively affect patient-health care provider communication and reduce the assay sensitivity of pain clinical trials. Given the lack of an objective gold standard measure, identifying the source (true or error) of the within-subject variability of pain reports is a challenge. By assessing the within-subjects variability of pain and taste reports, alongside with interoceptive measures, the current study is aimed to investigate if the ability to reliably report bodily sensations is a cross-modal characteristic. Patients and Methods: This prospective study enrolled healthy volunteers from local universities. After consenting, subjects underwent the Focus Analgesia Selection Task (FAST), to assess within-subjects variability of pain reports in response to experimental noxious stimuli; a taste task, which similarly assesses within-subjects variability of tastes (salty and sweet) intensity reports; and the heartbeat perception task, an interoceptive task aimed to assess how accurate subjects are in monitoring and reporting their own heartbeat. In addition, all subjects completed the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Spearman's correlations were used to assess relations between all measures. Results: Sixty healthy volunteers were recruited. Variability of intensity reports of different modalities were independent of each other (P > 0.05 for all correlations). The only correlation found was within modality, between variability of intensity reports of salt and sweet tastes (Spearman's r = 0.477, P < 0.001). No correlations were found between any of the task results and questionnaire results. Conclusion: Within-subjects variability of pain reports do not relate to variability of reports of other modalities or to interoceptive awareness. Further research is ongoing to investigate the clinical relevance of within-subjects' variability of pain reports.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Upper limb experimental heat pain is attenuated by lower limb nonpainful compression pants in an area-dependent mode, and in correlation with conditioned pain modulation, in healthy controls., Compression therapy, a well-recognized treatment for lymphoedema and venous disorders, pressurizes limbs and generates massive non-noxious afferent sensory barrages. The aim of this study was to study whether such afferent activity has an analgesic effect when applied on the lower limbs, hypothesizing that larger compression areas will induce stronger analgesic effects, and whether this effect correlates with conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Thirty young healthy subjects received painful heat and pressure stimuli (47°C for 30 seconds, forearm; 300 kPa for 15 seconds, wrist) before and during 3 compression protocols of either SMALL (up to ankles), MEDIUM (up to knees), or LARGE (up to hips) compression areas. Conditioned pain modulation (heat pain conditioned by noxious cold water) was tested before and after each compression protocol. The LARGE protocol induced more analgesia for heat than the SMALL protocol (P < 0.001). The analgesic effect interacted with gender (P = 0.015). The LARGE protocol was more efficient for females, whereas the MEDIUM protocol was more efficient for males. Pressure pain was reduced by all protocols (P < 0.001) with no differences between protocols and no gender effect. Conditioned pain modulation was more efficient than the compression-induced analgesia. For the LARGE protocol, precompression CPM efficiency positively correlated with compression-induced analgesia. Large body area compression exerts an area-dependent analgesic effect on experimental pain stimuli. The observed correlation with pain inhibition in response to robust non-noxious sensory stimulation may suggest that compression therapy shares similar mechanisms with inhibitory pain modulation assessed through CPM.

Although painfulness of the conditioning stimulus (CS) is required for the activation of conditioned pain modulation (CPM), it is still unclear whether CPM expression depends on the objective physical intensity of the CS or the subjective perception of its pain. Accordingly, we cognitively manipulated the perceived CS pain, rendering the physical aspects of the CPM paradigm untouched. Baseline CPM was measured among 48 young healthy male subjects using the parallel paradigm with contact heat as test pain and hand immersion in hot water as CS. Subjects were then randomized into 4 groups, all of which were cognitively manipulated as to the CS-induced pain: group 1, placebo (CS less painful); group 2, nocebo (CS more painful); and groups 3 and 4, the informed control groups for groups 1 and 2, respectively. CPM was reassessed after the manipulation. Comparing the groups by MANCOVA (multivariate analysis of covariance) revealed that placebo exerted decreased CS pain and consequent attenuation of CPM magnitudes, while nocebo elicited increased CS pain, but without CPM elevation (P.0001). Within the placebo group, the reduction in CS pain was associated with diminished CPM responses (r=0.767; P=.001); however, no such relationship characterized the nocebo group. Pain inhibition under CPM seems to depend on the perceived level of the CS pain rather than solely its physical intensity. Cognitively decreasing the perceived CS pain attenuates CPM magnitude, although a ceiling effect may limit CPM enhancement after cognitively increased CS pain. These findings emphasize the relevance of cognitive mechanisms in determining endogenous analgesia processes in humans.

The endogenous analgesia (EA) system is psychophysically evaluated using various paradigms, including conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and offset analgesia (OA) testing, respectively, the spatial and temporal filtering processes of noxious information. Though both paradigms assess the function of the EA system, it is still unknown whether they reflect the same aspects of EA and consequently whether they provide additive or equivalent data. Twenty-nine healthy volunteers (15 males) underwent 5 trials of different stimulation conditions in random order including: (1) the classic OA three-temperature stimulus train (‘OA’); (2) a three-temperature stimulus train as control for the OA (‘OAcon’); (3) a constant temperature stimulus (‘constant’); (4) the classic parallel CPM (‘CPM’); and (5) a combination of OA and CPM (‘OA + CPM’). We found that in males, the pain reduction during the OA + CPM condition was greater than during the OA (P = 0.003) and CPM (P = 0.07) conditions. Furthermore, a correlation was found between OA and CPM (r = 0.62, P = 0.01) at the time of maximum OA effect. The additive effect found suggests that the two paradigms represent at least partially different aspects of EA. The moderate association between the CPM and OA magnitudes indicates, on the other hand, some commonality of their underlying mechanisms.