Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 460

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gender differences in pressure pain threshold in healthy humans

Chesterton, Linda S, Barlas, Panos, Foster, Nadine E, Baxter, David G., Wright, Christine C·2003·Pain

Abstract

UNLABELLED: AIMS OF INVESTIGATION: To quantify the magnitude of putative gender differences in experimental pressure pain threshold (PPT), and to establish the relevance of repeated measurements to any such differences. METHODS: Two separate studies were undertaken. A pressure algometer was used in both studies to assess PPT in the first dorsal interosseous muscle. Force was increased at a rate of 5 N /s. In study 1, two measurements were taken from 240 healthy volunteers (120 males, 120 females; mean age 25 years) giving a power for statistical analysis of beta=0.80 at alpha=0.01. In study two, 30 subjects (15 males, 15 females mean age 28 years) were randomly selected from study one. Fourteen repeated PPT measurements were recorded at seven, 10 min intervals. Mean PPT data for gender groups, from both studies, were analysed using analysis of covariance with repeated measures, and age as the covariate. RESULTS: The mean PPT for each of the two measurements in study one showed a difference between gender of 12.2 N (f=30.5 N, m=42.7 N) and 12.8 N (f=29.5 N, m=42.3 N), respectively, representing a difference of 28% with females exhibiting a lower threshold. In study two, the mean difference calculated from 14 PPT repeated measurements over a 1h period was comparable to that in study one at 12.3N (range 10.4-14.4 N) again females exhibited the lower threshold. The differences in mean PPT values between gender were found to be significant in both study one, at (P<0.0005, F=37.8, df=1) and study two (P=0.01, F=7.6, df=1). No significant differences were found in either study with repeated measurement (P=0.892 and P=0.280), or on the interaction of gender and repeated measurement after controlling for age (P=0.36 and P=0.62). CONCLUSION: Healthy females exhibited significantly lower mean PPTs in the first dorsal interosseous muscle than males, which was maintained for fourteen repeated measures within a 1 h period. This difference is likely to be above clinically relevant levels of change, and it has clear implications for the use of different gender subjects in laboratory based experimental designs utilising PPT as an outcome measure.

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/s0304-3959(02)00330-5

Cites

8 of 8 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

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 460

Metadata

Authors
Chesterton, L. S., Barlas, P., Foster, N. E., Baxter, D. G., & Wright, C. C.
Venue
Pain
Published
2003-02
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
259-266
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002534005
Cited by
460
References
8
FWCI
9.59
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: Gender differences in pressure pain threshold in healthy humans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00330-5
The paper
Chesterton, L. S., Barlas, P., Foster, N. E., Baxter, D. G., & Wright, C. C. (2003). Gender differences in pressure pain threshold in healthy humans. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00330-5

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.