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.

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.