Cited by 82Gastrointestinal motility and disordersPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Central Processing of Noxious Somatic Stimuli in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome Compared With Healthy Controls

Open access
Heymen, Steve, Maixner, William, Whitehead, William E., Klatzkin, Rebecca R., Mechlin, Beth, Light, Kathleen C.·2010·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare a central analgesic mechanism known as diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC) using somatic test stimuli and somatic conditioning stimuli, (CS) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients and healthy controls. METHODS: Participants were 48 premenopausal females (27 with IBS), mean age of 29 years. The phasic heat test stimulus (peak temperature, 50 degrees C) was applied to the left palm. The DNIC effect, which measured reductions in average pain ratings (APR) during counter irritation (submersion of the participant's right hand in painful 12 degrees C circulating water) compared with baseline, was compared between groups. In addition, a second, counterbalanced, CS protocol (right hand submerged in nonpainful 32 degrees C circulating water) was performed. Differences in APR between the 2 counterirritation protocols were compared between groups to control for nonspecific effects known to influence DNIC. Psychologic measures and cardiovascular reactivity were also assessed. RESULTS: IBS patients demonstrated smaller DNIC than controls (P=0.011, repeated measures analysis of variance), and greater state-anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and anger-out expression (P<0.05). Group differences in DNIC were enhanced after controlling for nonspecific effects occurring during the nonpainful CS, and for psychologic measures (P=0.001, repeated measures analysis of covariance). There were no group differences in age, cardiovascular reactivity, APR, or pain ratings for the 12 degrees C CS. DISCUSSION: These data demonstrate deficient DNIC in IBS. This is the first study to adequately control for alternative explanations of pain reduction during counterirritation. Only by controlling for nonspecific effects can evidence of deficient DNIC be attributed to dysregulation in endogenous analgesic mechanisms.

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 · 10.1097/ajp.0b013e3181bff800

Cites

163 of 163 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • Some patients with IBS have compromised central inhibitory regulation of visceral and somatic stimuli.

    “Some patients with IBS have compromised central inhibitory regulation of visceral and somatic stimuli.35”

    From British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of irritable bowel syndrome (2021) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Discussion concludes that IBS patients showed compromised inhibitory regulation of somatic pain stimuli. It also reports an earlier finding of impaired inhibition during visceral stimulation, but cautions that distraction, hypervigilance, or peripheral gut sensitization could explain that finding; this paper therefore does not establish compromised central inhibition of visceral stimuli. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 164 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heymen, S., Maixner, W., Whitehead, W. E., Klatzkin, R. R., Mechlin, B., & Light, K. C.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
  • Heymen, Steve
  • Whitehead, William E.
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2010-02
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
104-109
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010829771
Cited by
82
References
164
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
FWCI
9.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P01NS045685)
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U01DE017018)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
irritable bowel syndrome, diffuse noxious inhibitory control, endogenous analgesia, counter-irritation, pain catastrophizing, state anxiety, depression, anger expression, cardiovascular reactivity, non-specific effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Blood Pressure, Female, Heart Rate, Hot Temperature, Humans, Hyperalgesia, Physical Stimulation, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Pain Threshold, Irritable Bowel Syndrome

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