Search

Background/Objectives: Variability in biopsychosocial factors can explain the interindividual variability in pain. One factor that can impact pain is the pain catastrophizing level. Interestingly, parental pain catastrophizing is related to the severity of the clinical pain of their children. This study explored whether parental pain catastrophizing is also associated with their children's experimental pain sensitivity. Methods: Forty-five healthy girls (mean age 12.07 ± 1.47 years) and one of their parents participated in this study. Parents completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) about their child's pain (PCS-Parentchild) as well as their pain (PCS-Parent). Children completed the PCS about their pain (PCS-Child) and the Pubertal Developmental Scale (PDS). Children underwent psychophysical tests, including paradigms of temporal summation, heat- and pressure-conditioned pain modulation, offset analgesia, and cold pain tolerance. Correlations and regression models were conducted to assess the relationships between parental pain catastrophizing scales (separately for PCS-Parentchild and PCS-Parent) and experimental pain sensitivity with and without controlling for PCS-Child and PDS. T-tests were used to compare pain sensitivity between participants with vs. without a family history of psychiatric disorder. Results: No significant relationships were found between the experimental pain sensitivity measures and either PCS-Parentchild or PCS-Parent with and without controlling for PCS-Child and PDS. No differences were found in experimental pain sensitivity between participants with and without a family history of psychiatric disorder. Conclusions: Parental pain catastrophizing may contribute minimally to the individual variability in experimental pain sensitivity of healthy adolescent girls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A critical aspect for most human pain research is the ability of participants to communicate their first‐person, experiential perspective to a third‐person observer. This communication is frequently accomplished via pain ratings. The scale type can influence the communication of pain experiences and can contribute to gender differences in pain. This study examined the role of gender on pain ratings using noxious and innocuous stimuli across two types of rating scales. Methods: Healthy participants (n = 46) underwent noxious heat, auditory and visual stimulation paradigms. Pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings were collected using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS). To determine if one rating scale allows a better report of small differences between different stimulus intensities, the sensitivity to small differences was calculated. Results: Significant effects for rating scale were found for all stimulus modalities (noxious heat, auditory and visual, p < 0.001) with higher intensity and unpleasantness ratings for the NRS compared to the VAS. Overall, no effects of gender or interactions with gender were found. No differences in rating scale and gender were detected for sensitivity to small differences between stimuli. Conclusions: These findings confirm differences in rating scale usage; however, the different usage might not contribute significantly to gender differences in pain. Significance: There are differences in the usage of rating scales in which ratings for auditory, visual and noxious somatosensory stimuli are higher with NRS compared to VAS. Choosing a rating scale for research or clinical use should take this different item functioning into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare spatial pain modulation capabilities between adolescents with and without migraine. Background: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) responses at the leg are similar in adolescents with versus without migraine. However, the anatomical region of testing may affect spatial pain modulation capabilities as differences in nociceptive processing between patients with migraine and healthy controls are found in local areas that are near the site of clinical pain but not in nonlocal areas. This study aimed to examine spatial pain modulation capabilities tested by the CPM paradigm using test stimulus applied to a local body area. Methods: Nineteen adolescents with migraine (age 14.9 ± 2.3, mean ± SD; 16 female) and 20 healthy adolescents (age 13.8 ± 2.5, mean ± SD; 16 female) completed this case–control study at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were assessed at the trapezius before and during immersion of the foot in a cold water bath (8°C). Results: In the migraine group (146.0 ± 79.1, mean ± SD), compared to healthy controls (248.0 ± 145.5, mean ± SD), significantly lower PPT (kilopascal) values were found (estimate = 124.28, 95% CI: 58.98, 189.59, p < 0.001; effect size: d = 1.40). No differences between the groups were found for pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings of cold‐water immersion nor the CPM response. Conclusions: This study found altered ascending nociceptive processing of mechanical stimuli at the neck in adolescents with migraine. However, endogenous pain modulatory mechanisms were functional and not altered. In light of other studies, impairments in inhibitory control may not be involved in migraine pathophysiology in pediatric patients regardless of stimulus location. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]