Introduction: Cognitive biases in attention, interpretation and less consistently memory have been observed in individuals with chronic pain and play a critical role in the onset and maintenance of chronic pain. Despite operating in combination cognitive biases are typically explored in isolation. Aim: The primary aim of this study was to explore attentional, interpretation and memory biases and their interrelationship in individuals with chronic headache. Methods: Twenty-eight participants with chronic headache and 34 healthy controls completed paradigms assessing attentional, interpretation and memory biases with ambiguous sensory-pain and neutral words. Results: Individuals with chronic pain showed significantly greater pain-related attentional and interpretation biases relative to controls, with no differences in memory bias. No significant correlation was found between any of the three forms of cognitive bias assessed. Discussion and conclusion: The clinical implications of cognitive biases in individuals with chronic pain remain to be fully explored, although one avenue for future research would be specific investigation of the implications of biased interpretations considering the consistency of results found across the literature for this form of bias.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the evidence pertaining to attentional bias for painful and nonpainful somatosensory stimuli in individuals with chronic pain. Eligible studies were identified through searches of Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Search terms were words and phrases organised into 3 concept blocks: pain condition, cognitive process, and stimuli/paradigm. The search identified 29 eligible studies (reporting 32 eligible experiments), of which quantitative meta-analysis was possible for 16 studies (19 experiments). The meta-analysis found that chronic pain patients, excluding somatoform pain patients, showed significantly greater attentional bias to stimuli in the somatosensory modality than healthy controls (k = 9, g = 0.34). In addition, meta-analysis of studies that used a temporal order judgement task found that patients with unilateral chronic pain showed a spatial attentional bias away from somatosensory stimuli (k = 7, effect estimate = 22.43 ms) and visual stimuli (k = 2, effect estimate = 13.75 ms) on or near the painful body side. Most studies of attentional bias to the somatosensory modality recruited samples of patients with fibromyalgia, whereas most studies of spatial attentional bias assessed patients with complex regional pain syndrome. The extent to which these results generalise to other pain conditions is therefore unclear. We recommend future research test spatial and modality attentional biases across chronic pain conditions and examine the psychometric properties of attentional bias measurement paradigms for use with chronic pain populations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019124510.

No abstract

IntroductionThis protocol describes the objective and methods of a systematic review of the association between quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures and pain intensity or disability in paediatric chronic pain (PCP). The review will also assess whether the relationship strength is moderated by variables related to the QST method and pain condition; the use of QST in PCP (modalities, outcome measures and anatomical test sites as well as differentiating between pain mechanisms (eg, neuropathic vs nociceptive) and in selecting analgesics); the reliability of QST across the paediatric age range; the ability of QST to differentiate patients with chronic pain from healthy controls; and differences between anatomical test sites.Methods and analysisMedline, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and OpenGrey will be searched. English language studies will be eligible if they recruit a sample aged 6–24 (inclusive) with chronic pain, including primary and secondary pain; apply at least one of the following QST modalities: chemical, electrical, mechanical (subgroups include pressure, punctate/brush and vibratory) or thermal stimulus to measure perception of noxious or innocuous stimuli applied to skin, muscle or joint; use a testing protocol to control for stimulus properties: modality, anatomical site, intensity, duration and sequence. Following title and abstract screening, the full texts of relevant records will be independently assessed by two reviewers. For eligible studies, one reviewer will extract study characteristics and data, and another will check for accuracy. Both will undertake independent quality assessments using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. A qualitative synthesis will be presented with discussion centred around different QST modalities. Where eligible data permit, meta-analyses will be performed separately for different QST modalities using comprehensive meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationReview findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. The study raises no ethical issues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134069.

Attentional bias to pain-related information may contribute to chronic pain maintenance. It is theoretically predicted that attentional bias to pain-related language derives from attentional bias to painful sensations; however, the complex interconnection between these types of attentional bias has not yet been tested. This study aimed to investigate the association between attentional bias to pain words and attentional bias to the location of pain, as well as the moderating role of pain-related interpretation bias in this association. Fifty-four healthy individuals performed a visual probe task with pain-related and neutral words, during which eye movements were tracked. In a subset of trials, participants were presented with a cold pain stimulus on one hand. Pain-related interpretation and memory biases were also assessed. Attentional bias to pain words and attentional bias to the pain location were not significantly correlated, although the association was significantly moderated by interpretation bias. A combination of painrelated interpretation bias and attentional bias to painful sensations was associated with avoidance of pain words. In addition, first fixation durations on pain words were longer when the pain word and cold pain stimulus were presented on the same side of the body, as compared to on opposite sides. This indicates that congruency between the locations of pain and pain-related information may strengthen attentional bias. Overall, these findings indicate that cognitive biases to pain-related information interact with cognitive biases to somatosensory information. The implications of these findings for attentional bias modification interventions are discussed.