Pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects of a conditioned pain modulation protocol in participants with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects

Background: People with chronic pain may exhibit pro-nociceptive phenotypes characterised partly by reduced conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Characterising variability in CPM in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) may inform management. Objectives: To investigate pro/anti-nociceptive effects...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rabey, M., Poon, C., Wray, J., Thamajaree, C., East, R., Slater, Helen
Format: Journal Article
Published: Churchill Livingstone 2014
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/5652
_version_ 1848744856565841920
author Rabey, M.
Poon, C.
Wray, J.
Thamajaree, C.
East, R.
Slater, Helen
author_facet Rabey, M.
Poon, C.
Wray, J.
Thamajaree, C.
East, R.
Slater, Helen
author_sort Rabey, M.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Background: People with chronic pain may exhibit pro-nociceptive phenotypes characterised partly by reduced conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Characterising variability in CPM in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) may inform management. Objectives: To investigate pro/anti-nociceptive effects of a CPM protocol in age/sex-matched healthy controls (HCs) and people with CLBP. Design: Case-controlled trial (64 participants/group). Method: The CPM protocol involved: test stimulus (TS) (noxious pressure applied by algometer to lumbar region); conditioning stimulus (CS) (noxious heat applied by thermode to dorsal hand). CPM recruitment was measured by the change in pain intensity (rated on a numeric rating scale (NRS)) of the TS in the presence and absence of the CS. Results: Responses to this CPM protocol were variable for both groups with measures consistent with either inhibitory or facilitatory effects. A significantly greater proportion of facilitatory responses were seen in the CLBP cohort compared to HCs (73% versus 31%). In response to the CS, participants with CLBP demonstrated a mean increase in NRS scores (mean 1.3 points; p<0.001), while HCs did not (mean-0.2 points; p=0.35) and the between-group difference in change scores was significant (mean 1.4 points; p<0.001; effect size (Hedges' g): 1.03). Conclusion: In HCs and participants with CLBP this CPM protocol elicited responses consistent with varying pro/anti-nociceptive effects. The higher proportion of participants with CLBP demonstrating a facilitatory response suggests a pro-nociceptive phenotype may characterise this cohort.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T06:08:07Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-5652
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T06:08:07Z
publishDate 2014
publisher Churchill Livingstone
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-56522017-09-13T14:43:27Z Pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects of a conditioned pain modulation protocol in participants with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects Rabey, M. Poon, C. Wray, J. Thamajaree, C. East, R. Slater, Helen Background: People with chronic pain may exhibit pro-nociceptive phenotypes characterised partly by reduced conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Characterising variability in CPM in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) may inform management. Objectives: To investigate pro/anti-nociceptive effects of a CPM protocol in age/sex-matched healthy controls (HCs) and people with CLBP. Design: Case-controlled trial (64 participants/group). Method: The CPM protocol involved: test stimulus (TS) (noxious pressure applied by algometer to lumbar region); conditioning stimulus (CS) (noxious heat applied by thermode to dorsal hand). CPM recruitment was measured by the change in pain intensity (rated on a numeric rating scale (NRS)) of the TS in the presence and absence of the CS. Results: Responses to this CPM protocol were variable for both groups with measures consistent with either inhibitory or facilitatory effects. A significantly greater proportion of facilitatory responses were seen in the CLBP cohort compared to HCs (73% versus 31%). In response to the CS, participants with CLBP demonstrated a mean increase in NRS scores (mean 1.3 points; p<0.001), while HCs did not (mean-0.2 points; p=0.35) and the between-group difference in change scores was significant (mean 1.4 points; p<0.001; effect size (Hedges' g): 1.03). Conclusion: In HCs and participants with CLBP this CPM protocol elicited responses consistent with varying pro/anti-nociceptive effects. The higher proportion of participants with CLBP demonstrating a facilitatory response suggests a pro-nociceptive phenotype may characterise this cohort. 2014 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/5652 10.1016/j.math.2015.02.011 Churchill Livingstone restricted
spellingShingle Rabey, M.
Poon, C.
Wray, J.
Thamajaree, C.
East, R.
Slater, Helen
Pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects of a conditioned pain modulation protocol in participants with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects
title Pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects of a conditioned pain modulation protocol in participants with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects
title_full Pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects of a conditioned pain modulation protocol in participants with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects
title_fullStr Pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects of a conditioned pain modulation protocol in participants with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects
title_full_unstemmed Pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects of a conditioned pain modulation protocol in participants with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects
title_short Pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects of a conditioned pain modulation protocol in participants with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects
title_sort pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects of a conditioned pain modulation protocol in participants with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/5652