Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorLie, Marie
dc.contributor.authorPetriu, Elena
dc.contributor.authorMatre, Dagfinn
dc.contributor.authorHansson, Per
dc.contributor.authorAndersen, Ole Kæseler
dc.contributor.authorZwart, John-Anker
dc.contributor.authorNilsen, Kristian Bernhard
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-13T09:54:15Z
dc.date.available2020-01-13T09:54:15Z
dc.date.created2019-07-31T14:53:16Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Journal of Pain. 2019, 1-11.nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn1090-3801
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2635886
dc.description.abstractBackground 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 seconds 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 seconds, 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 intra‐individual variability) was found in both protocols.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherWileynb_NO
dc.titlePsychophysical or spinal reflex measures when assessing conditioned pain modulation?nb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionnb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber1-11nb_NO
dc.source.journalEuropean Journal of Painnb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ejp.1462
dc.identifier.cristin1713481
dc.description.localcodeLocked until 29.7.2020 due to copyright restrictions. This is the peer reviewed version of an article, which has been published in final form at [https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1462]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.nb_NO
cristin.unitcode194,65,30,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for nevromedisin og bevegelsesvitenskap
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel