Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Defective Endogenous Pain Modulation in Fibromyalgia: A Meta-Analysis of Temporal Summation and Conditioned Pain Modulation Paradigms

Open access
O'Brien, Anthony Terrence, Deitos, Alicia, Triñanes Pego, Yolanda, Fregni, Felipe, Carrillo-de-la-Peña, Maria Teresa·2018·The Journal of Pain

Abstract

To study the characteristics of temporal summation (TS) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in fibromyalgia (FM) patients, we systematically searched Pubmed and EMBASE for studies using TS or CPM comparing FM patients with healthy controls. We computed Hedges' g, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression tests with 10,000 Monte-Carlo permutations. Twenty-three studies (625 female and 23 male FM patients and 591 female and 81 male healthy controls) were included. The meta-analyses showed an effect size of .53 for TS (P < .001; 95% confidence interval = .23-.83), which is a 68% relative difference between patients and controls, and of .57 for CPM (P < .001; 95% confidence interval = -.88 to -.26), representing a 65% relative difference between the groups. The qualitative analyses revealed large heterogeneity between study protocols. Although studies were of low risk of bias, lack of blinding was substantial. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression identified type and site of stimulation, age, lab, sample size, and medication control as important sources of between-study variability. We showed a significant alteration of pain modulation mechanisms in FM patients. PERSPECTIVE This novel meta-analysis provides evidence for defective endogenous pain modulation in FM patients. We explored the effect of covariates on between-study variability in these paradigms. These biomarkers may aid in diagnosis, and treatment of patients. However, validation requires further investigation under strict methodological settings, and into individual patient covariates.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.01.010

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
O'Brien, A. T., Deitos, A., Triñanes Pego, Y., Fregni, F., & Carrillo-de-la-Peña, M. T.
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
819-836
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2790266628
Cited by
227
References
11
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.