Background : Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and cold pressor test (CPTest). Unfortunately, these complex and expensive tools are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Aims : We aimed to compare the temporal summation and CPM obtained with the thermode + CPTest paradigm to those obtained with a novel paradigm using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). Methods : We assessed temporal summation and CPM in 29 healthy participants, using two paradigms (random order): TENS, and thermode + CPTest. In the TENS paradigm, both the conditioning stimulus (CS) and the test stimulus (TS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode + CPTest paradigm, the CS consisted of a CPTest and the TS was delivered using a thermode. We compared the average temporal summation and CPM evoked by the two paradigms. Results : Average temporal summation was similar for both modalities ( P = 0.90), and the number of participants showing temporal summation was similar in both paradigms (19 with thermode vs. 18 with TENS; P = 1.00). Average CPM response was larger following the thermode + CPTest than following the TENS ( P = 0.005), and more participants showed CPM with the thermode + CPTest paradigm compared to the TENS paradigm (24 vs. 14; P = 0.01). Conclusions : Both paradigms were roughly equivalent in the ability to evoke temporal summation (although response to one modality did not predict response to the other), but the TENS paradigm appeared to be less apt to induce a CPM response than the thermode + CPTest paradigm.

Kinesiophobia is associated with pain intensity in people suffering from chronic pain. The number of publications highlighting this relationship has increased significantly in recent years, emphasizing the importance of investigating and synthesizing research evidence on this topic. The purpose of this scoping review was to answer the following questions: (1) What types of interventions have been or are currently being studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the management of kinesiophobia in patients with chronic pain? (2) What chronic pain conditions are targeted by these interventions? (3) What assessment tools for kinesiophobia are used in these interventions? According to the studies reviewed, (1) physical exercise is the most commonly used approach for managing irrational fear of movement, (2) interventions for kinesiophobia have primarily focused on musculoskeletal pain conditions, particularly low back pain and neck pain, and (3) the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia is the most commonly used tool for measuring kinesiophobia. Future RCTs should consider multidisciplinary interventions that can help patients confront their irrational fear of movement while taking into account the patient’s personal biological, psychological, and social experiences with pain and kinesiophobia.

Temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and a cold pressor test (CPT). Unfortunately, these tools are complex, expensive, and are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Building on the results from an exploratory study that attempted to use transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to measure CPM and TSP, the present study assesses whether a “new” TENS protocol can be used instead of the thermode and CPT to measure CPM and TSP. The objective of this study was to compare the thermode/CPT protocol with the new TENS protocol, by (1) measuring the association between the TSP evoked by the two protocols; (2) measuring the association between the CPM evoked by the two protocols; and by (3) assessing whether the two protocols successfully trigger TSP and CPM in a similar number of participants. We assessed TSP and CPM in 50 healthy participants, using our new TENS protocol and a thermode/CPT protocol (repeated measures and randomized order). In the TENS protocol, both the test stimulus (TS) and the conditioning stimulus (CS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode/CPT protocol, the TS was delivered using a thermode and the CS consisted of a CPT. There was no association between the response evoked by the two protocols, neither for TSP nor for CPM. The number of participants showing TSP [49 with TENS and 29 with thermode (p < 0.001)] and CPM [16 with TENS and 30 with thermode (p = 0.01)] was different in both protocols. Our results suggest that response to one modality does not predict response to the other; as such, TENS cannot be used instead of a thermode/CPT protocol to assess TSP and CPM without significantly affecting the results. Moreover, while at first glance it appears that TENS is more effective than the thermode/CPT protocol to induce TSP, but less so to induce CPM, these results should be interpreted carefully. Indeed, TSP and CPM response appear to be modality-dependent as opposed to an absolute phenomenon, and the two protocols may tap into entirely different mechanisms, especially in the case of TSP.

Introduction: Quantitative sensory testing is frequently used in research to assess endogenous pain modulation mechanisms, such as Temporal Summation (TS) and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM), reflecting excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms, respectively. Numerous studies found that a dysregulation of these mechanisms is associated with chronic pain conditions. In turn, such a patient's “profile” (increased TS and/or weakened CPM) could be used to recommend different pharmacological treatments. However, the procedure to evaluate these mechanisms is time-consuming and requires expensive equipment that is not available in the clinical setting. In this study, we aim to identify psychological, physiological and socio-demographic markers that could serve as proxies to allow healthcare professionals to identify these pain phenotypes in clinic, and consequently optimize pharmacological treatments.Method: We aim to recruit a healthy participant cohort (n = 360) and a chronic pain patient cohort (n = 108). Independent variables will include psychological questionnaires, pain measurements, physiological measures and sociodemographic characteristics. Dependent variables will include TS and CPM, which will be measured using quantitative sensory testing in a single session. We will evaluate one prediction model and two validation models (for healthy and chronic pain participants) using multiple regression analysis between TS/CPM and our independent variables. The significance thresholds will be set at p = 0.05, respectively.Perspectives: This study will allow us to develop a predictive model to compute the pain modulation profile of individual patients based on their biopsychosocial characteristics. The development of the predictive model is the first step toward the overarching goal of providing clinicians with a set of quick and cheap tests, easily applicable in clinical practice to orient pharmacological treatments.