Ethnic differences in diffuse noxious inhibitory controls
Open accessAbstract
Unlabelled Substantial evidence indicates that the experience of both clinical and experimental pain differs among ethnic groups. Specifically, African Americans generally report higher levels of clinical pain and greater sensitivity to experimentally induced pain; however, little research has examined the origins of these differences. Differences in central pain-inhibitory mechanisms may contribute to this disparity. Diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC), or counterirritation, is a phenomenon thought to reflect descending inhibition of pain signals. The current study assessed DNIC in 57 healthy young adults from 2 different ethnic groups: African Americans and non-Hispanic whites. Repeated assessments of the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) as well as ratings of electrical pain were obtained before, during, and after an ischemic arm pain procedure (as well as a sham procedure). The DNIC condition (ie, ischemic arm pain) produced substantial reductions in pain ratings as well as electrophysiologic measures of the NFR for all participants when compared with the sham condition (P < .001). The DNIC condition produced significantly greater reductions in verbal pain ratings among non-Hispanic whites when compared with African Americans (P = .02), whereas ethnic groups showed comparable reductions in NFR. The findings of this study suggest differences in endogenous pain inhibition between African Americans and non-Hispanic whites and that additional research to determine the mechanisms underlying these effects is warranted.Perspective This study adds to the growing literature examining ethnic differences in experimental pain perception. Our data suggest that these variations may be influenced by differences in descending inhibition.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
State-based positive affect has been identified as a mediator of resilience after chronic pain.
“state-based positive affect has been identified as a mediator of resilience in the wake of chronic pain 59–61.”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [60]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 71 · Cited by 113
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Coghill RC, Gracely RH. Validation of combined numerical-analog descriptor scales for rating pain intensity and pain unpleasantness. Proc Amer Pain Soc 1996;15:86.
- Dionne RA, Bartoshuk L, Mogil J, Witter J. Individual responder analyses for pain: does one pain scale fit all? Trends Pharmacol.Sci 2005;26:125-130. [PubMed: 15749157]
- Sandrini G, Serrao M, Rossi P, Romaniello A, Cruccu G, Willer JC. The lower limb flexion reflex in humans. Prog.Neurobiol 2005;77:353-395. [PubMed: 16386347]
- Staud R, Robinson ME, Vierck CJ Jr, Price DD. Diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC) attenuate temporal summation of second pain in normal males but not in normal females or fibromyalgia patients. Pain 2003;101:167-174. [PubMed: 12507711]
- Authors
- Campbell, C. M., France, C. R., Robinson, M. E., Logan, H. L., Geffken, G. R., & Fillingim, R. B.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Ohio University (US)
- University of Florida Health (US)
- University of Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, Claudia M.
- Venue
- The Journal of Pain
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 759-766
- ISSN
- 1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2597628
- OpenAlex
- W2110509042
- Cited by
- 113
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 4.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH075884)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS42754, R01NS042754, F32NS063624)
- National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U01DE017018)
- National Center for Research Resources (RR-00082, M01RR000082)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Keywords
- diffuse noxious inhibitory control, counter-irritation, ethnic differences, African Americans, non-Hispanic whites, descending pain inhibition, endogenous pain inhibition, nociceptive flexion reflex, ischemic pain
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Black or African American, Electric Stimulation, Electrophysiology, Female, Forearm, Humans, Ischemia, Male, Neural Inhibition, Nociceptors, Pain, Pain Measurement, Reflex, Southeastern United States, Pain Threshold, White People
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review