MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128709106 · doi:10.1002/ejp.1746

The effect of experimental pain on the excitability of the corticospinal tract in humans: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021· review· en· W3128709106 on OpenAlexafffund
Antoine Rohel, Jason Bouffard, Philippe Patricio, Nicolas Mavromatis, Maxime Billot, Jean‐Sébastien Roy, Laurent J. Bouyer, Catherine Mercier, Hugo Massé‐Alarie

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsTonic (physiology)Transcranial magnetic stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCorticospinal tractMeta-analysisMedicineNeurosciencePsychologyStimulationMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pain influences motor control. Previous reviews observed that pain reduces the excitability of corticospinal projections to muscles tested with transcranial magnetic stimulation. However, the independent effect of the type of pain models (tonic, phasic), pain location and tissues targeted (e.g. muscle, skin) remains unexplored. The objective of this review was to determine the influence of experimental pain and of different methodological factors on the corticospinal excitability. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Three electronic databases were searched: Embase, Pubmed and Web of Science. Meta-analyses were conducted in three consecutive steps to reduce methodological variability: (a) all studies; (b) same pain location; (c) same tissues, pain location and muscle state. Strength of evidence was assessed for each analysis performed. RESULTS: Forty studies were included in the review and 26 in the meta-analysis as it focused only on studies using tonic pain. Overall, there was conflicting/moderate evidence of a diminution of corticospinal excitability during and after tonic pain. When considering only pain location, tonic hand and face pain induced a reduction in corticospinal excitability (limited evidence). Both muscle and cutaneous hand pain reduced corticospinal excitability (limited/conflicting evidence). Similar results were observed for phasic pain (limited evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the inhibitory effect of pain on corticospinal excitability for both tonic and phasic pain. This reduction was specific to hand and face pain. Also, both cutaneous and muscle hand pain reduced excitability. The strength of evidence remains limited/conflicting. More high-quality studies are needed to confirm our conclusions. SIGNIFICANCE: This study adds evidence on the effect of specific factors on the modulation of corticospinal excitability during/after experimental pain. The reduction in corticospinal excitability was driven by hand and face pain. We confirmed previous results that muscle pain reduces corticospinal excitability and provided evidence of a similar effect for cutaneous pain. Both models may inform on the influence of different types of pain on motor control. Future studies are needed to determine the origin of the effect of pain.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207