The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pain perception in athletes compared to normally active controls: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Abstract
This study systematically reviewed differences in pain perception between athletes and normally active controls. We screened MEDLINE, Sport-Discus, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and the citations of original studies and systematic reviews. All studies on experimentally induced pain that compared pain perception between athletes and normally active controls were eligible. The main outcome measures were pain tolerance and pain threshold. Effects are described as standardized mean differences and were pooled using random-effects models. Fifteen studies including 899 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of these studies assessed pain tolerance, and 9 studies examined pain threshold. A meta-analysis of these studies revealed that athletes possessed higher pain tolerance compared to normally active controls (effect size calculated as Hedges' g=0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI(95)] 0.53-1.21; P<0.00001), whereas available data on pain threshold were less uniform (Hedges' g=0.69, CI(95) 0.16-1.21; P=0.01). After exclusion of studies with high risk of bias, differences between groups in pain threshold were not significant any longer. Our data suggest that regular physical activity is associated with specific alterations in pain perception. Psychological and biological factors that may be responsible for these alterations are discussed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,395
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 · Cited by 7,709
2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: A Second Update of Codes and MET Values
AINSWORTH, B. E., HASKELL, W. L., HERRMANN, S. D., MECKES, N., BASSETT, D. R., TUDOR-LOCKE, C., GREER, J. L., VEZINA, J., WHITT-GLOVER, M. C., & LEON, A. S. (2011) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31821ece12 · Cited by 6,317
Cited by
Lautenbacher, S., Peters, J. H., Heesen, M., Scheel, J., & Kunz, M. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.039 · Cited by 536
Common brain mechanisms of chronic pain and addiction
Elman, I., & Borsook, D. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.027 · Cited by 303
Psychological Benefits of Sports and Physical Activities
Garcia-Falgueras, A. (2015) · British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science · doi:10.9734/bjesbs/2015/21865 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Tesarz, J., Schuster, A. K., Hartmann, M., Gerhardt, A., & Eich, W.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1253-1262
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2053422579
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 67
- FWCI
- 1.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pain perception in athletes compared to normally active controls: A systematic review with meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2012.03.005
- The paper
- Tesarz, J., Schuster, A. K., Hartmann, M., Gerhardt, A., & Eich, W. (2012). Pain perception in athletes compared to normally active controls: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.03.005
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.
