Evidence of localized and widespread pressure pain hypersensitivity in patients with tension-type headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This meta-analysis evaluates pressure pain sensitivity values in symptomatic and distant pain-free areas comparing individuals with tension-type headache to controls. Databases and data treatment Electronic databases were searched for cross-sectional or prospective case-control studies comparing pressure pain thresholds in patients with tension-type headache to headache-free controls. Data were extracted by three reviewers. The methodological quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Meta-analyses of trigeminal, extra-trigeminal (neck) and distant pain-free areas in tension-type headache were compared to headache-free controls. Frequency of tension-type headache and gender were taken into account. Results Twenty studies were included. Patients with tension-type headache exhibited lower pressure pain thresholds than headache-free controls: Trigeminal (MD −49.11 kPa, 95% CI −66.05 to −32.17), cervical spine (MD −88.17 kPa, 95% CI −108.43 to −67.92) and distant pain-free areas (MD −98.43 kPa, 95% CI −136.78 to −60.09). Differences were significant for chronic, episodic, and mixed episodic and chronic tension-type headache within the trigeminal and neck (symptomatic areas), but only significant for chronic tension-type headache (MD −102.86, 95% CI −139.47 to −66.25 kPa) for distant pain-free areas. In general, women had lower pressure pain thresholds than men. The methodological quality ranged from fair (45%) to good (40%). The results showed a high heterogeneity and publication bias. Conclusion This first meta-analysis addressing pressure pain thresholds differences in symptomatic and distant pain-free areas between patients with tension-type headache and controls found low to moderate evidence supporting the presence of pressure pain hypersensitivity in the trigeminal and neck areas in tension-type headache in comparison with headache-free controls. Sensitivity to pressure pain was widespread only in chronic, not episodic, tension-type headache (moderate evidence). Registration number: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R29HY
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".