Quantitative sensory tests are widely used in human research to evaluate the effect of analgesics and explore altered pain mechanisms, such as central sensitization. In order to apply these tests in clinical practice, knowledge of reference values is essential. The aim of this study was to determine the reference values of pain thresholds for mechanical and thermal stimuli, as well as withdrawal time for the cold pressor test in 300 pain-free subjects. Pain detection and pain tolerance thresholds to pressure, heat and cold were determined at three body sites: (1) lower back, (2) suprascapular region and (3) second toe (for pressure) or the lateral aspect of the leg (for heat and cold). The influences of gender, age, height, weight, body-mass index (BMI), body side of testing, depression, anxiety, catastrophizing and parameters of Short-Form 36 (SF-36) were analyzed by multiple regressions. Quantile regressions were performed to define the 5th, 10th and 25th percentiles as reference values for pain hypersensitivity and the 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles as reference values for pain hyposensitivity. Gender, age and/or the interaction of age with gender were the only variables that consistently affected the pain measures. Women were more pain sensitive than men. However, the influence of gender decreased with increasing age. In conclusion, normative values of parameters related to pressure, heat and cold pain stimuli were determined. Reference values have to be stratified by body region, gender and age. The determination of these reference values will now allow the clinical application of the tests for detecting abnormal pain reactions in individual patients.

Low back pain is associated with plasticity changes and central hypersensitivity in a subset of patients. We performed a case-control study to explore the discriminative ability of different quantitative sensory tests in distinguishing between 40 cases with chronic low back pain and 300 pain-free controls, and to rank these tests according to the extent of their association with chronic pain. Gender, age, height, weight, body mass index, and psychological measures were recorded as potential confounders. We used 26 quantitative sensory tests, including different modalities of pressure, heat, cold, and electrical stimulation. As measures of discrimination, we estimated receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and likelihood ratios. Six tests seemed useful (in order of their discriminative ability): (1) pressure pain detection threshold at the site of most severe pain (fitted area under the ROC, 0.87), (2) single electrical stimulation pain detection threshold (0.87), (3) single electrical stimulation reflex threshold (0.83), (4) pressure pain tolerance threshold at the site of most severe pain (0.81), (5) pressure pain detection threshold at suprascapular region (0.80), and (6) temporal summation pain threshold (0.80). Pressure and electrical pain modalities seemed most promising and may be used for diagnosis of pain hypersensitivity and potentially for identifying individuals at risk of developing chronic low back pain over time.

During the last decade, a multi-modal approach has been established in human experimental pain research for assessing pain thresholds and responses to various experimental pain modalities. Studies have concluded that differences in responses to pain stimuli are mainly related to variation between individuals rather than variation in response to different stimulus modalities. In a factor analysis of 272 consecutive volunteers (137 men and 135 women) who underwent tests with different experimental pain modalities, it was determined whether responses to different pain modalities represent distinct individual uncorrelated dimensions of pain perception. Volunteers underwent single painful electrical stimulation, repeated painful electrical stimulation (temporal summation), test for reflex receptive field, pressure pain stimulation, heat pain stimulation, cold pain stimulation, and a cold pressor test (ice water test). Five distinct factors were found representing responses to 5 distinct experimental pain modalities: pressure, heat, cold, electrical stimulation, and reflex-receptive fields. Each of the factors explained approximately 8% to 35% of the observed variance, and the 5 factors cumulatively explained 94% of the variance. The correlation between the 5 factors was near null (median ρ=0.00, range -0.03 to 0.05), with 95% confidence intervals for pairwise correlations between 2 factors excluding any relevant correlation. Results were almost similar for analyses stratified according to gender and age. Responses to different experimental pain modalities represent different specific dimensions and should be assessed in combination in future pharmacological and clinical studies to represent the complexity of nociception and pain experience.

Assessments of spinal nociceptive withdrawal reflexes can be used in human research both to evaluate the effect of analgesics and explore pain mechanisms related to sensitization. Before the reflex can be used as a clinical tool, normative values need to be determined in large scale studies. The aim of this study was to determine the reference values of spinal nociceptive reflexes and subjective pain thresholds (to single and repeated stimulation), and of the area of the reflex receptive fields (RRF) in 300 pain-free volunteers. The influences of gender, age, height, weight, body-mass index (BMI), body side of testing, depression, anxiety, catastrophizing and parameters of Short-Form 36 (SF-36) were analyzed by multiple regressions. The 95% confidence intervals were determined for all the tests as normative values. Age had a statistically and quantitatively significant impact on the subjective pain threshold to single stimuli. The reflex threshold to single stimulus was lower on the dominant compared to the non-dominant side. Depression had a negative impact on the subjective pain threshold to single stimuli. All the other analyses either did not reveal statistical significance or displayed quantitatively insignificant correlations. In conclusion, normative values of parameters related to the spinal nociceptive reflex were determined. This allows their clinical application for assessing central hyperexcitability in individual patients. The parameters investigated explore different aspects of sensitization processes that are largely independent of demographic characteristics, cognitive and affective factors.

Objectives: Disturbed endogenous pain modulation is likely one of the mechanisms underlying central hypersensitivity and might be a contributing factor for the development and maintenance of chronic pain. To our knowledge, no study has investigated endogenous pain modulation in both acute and chronic low back pain (LBP). We tested the hypothesis that endogenous pain inhibition is impaired in patients with acute and chronic LBP. Materials and Methods:We evaluated 40 patients with acute LBP, 34 patients with chronic LBP and 30 pain-free controls for their conditioned pain modulation (CPM), with pressure pain tolerance and cold pressor as test and conditioning stimulus, respectively. Measurements were repeated up to 10 minutes after cold pressor test.Results: There was no difference in CPM among the groups immediately after cold pressor test. However, the decline in CPM effect was significantly faster in chronic and acute LBP patients than in controls, with no evidence for differences between pain groups.Discussion: The present study provides evidence for some alterations of endogenous modulation in both acute and chronic LBP. CPM was still detected in both patient groups, indicating that endogenous modulation, although effective for a shorter duration, is partially functioning in patients with LBP.Key Words: conditioned pain modulation, acute low back pain, chronic low back pain (Clin J Pain 2016;32:116-121) T he central nervous system is capable to modulate signals coming from peripheral tissues, leading to either amplification or attenuation of the nociceptive input. 1 One important aspect of central pain modulation is endogenous inhibition, as its impaired efficiency may be a determinant of symptoms in pain patients. In humans, 1-test paradigm to evaluate the endogenous pain modulatory system is conditioned pain modulation (CPM), which occurs when the response to a painful test stimulus is inhibited by an additional conditioning painful stimulus. 2 Disturbed CPM is likely one of the mechanisms underlying central hypersensitivity and might be 1 contributing factor for the development and maintenance of chronic pain. Patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) display decreased pain thresholds after stimulation of nonpainful tissues and enlargement of the areas of referred pain, 3-5 which is strongly suggestive for widespread central hypersensitivity. Although hypersensitivity has been documented, the mechanisms underlying exaggerated pain responses in acute and chronic LBP are unclear. One of these mechanisms may be deficient endogenous pain modulation. Most studies have focused on chronic pain conditions, but deficient pain modulation could also be present in the acute phase. Furthermore, most studies have assessed CPM at 1 time-point, and information on its time course after cessation of the conditioning stimulus is sparse.The hypothesis of this study was that endogenous pain inhibition is impaired in patients with acute and chronic LBP. We evaluated the inhibitory effect not only immediately after the condit...