MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162150995 · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzab131

Evidence of Bilateral Localized, but Not Widespread, Pressure Pain Hypersensitivity in Patients With Upper Extremity Tendinopathy/Overuse Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W3162150995 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
César Fernández‐de‐las‐Peñas, Marcos José Navarro‐Santana, Joshua A. Cleland, José L. Arias‐Buría, Gustavo Plaza‐Manzano

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTendinopathyTennis elbowPhysical therapyPopulationElbowSurgeryTendon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The presence of altered nociceptive pain processing in patients with upper extremity tendinopathy/overuse injury is conflicting. Our aim was to compare pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in symptomatic and distant pain-free areas between patients with upper extremity tendinopathy/overuse injury and controls. METHODS: Five databases were searched from inception to October 15, 2020. The authors selected case-control studies comparing PPTs between individuals with upper extremity tendinopathy/overuse injury and pain-free controls. Data were extracted for population, diagnosis, sample size, outcome, and type of algometer. Results were extracted by 3 reviewers. The methodological quality/risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale) and evidence level (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach) were assessed. Meta-analyses of symptomatic, segment-related, and distant pain-free areas were compared. RESULTS: The search identified 807 publications with 19 studies (6 shoulder, 13 elbow) eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality ranged from fair (48%) to good (37%). Patients exhibited lower bilateral PPTs than controls at the symptomatic area (affected side: MD = -175.89 kPa [95% CI = -220.30 to -131.48 kPa]; nonaffected side: MD = -104.50 kPa [95% CI = -142.72 to -66.28 kPa]) and the segment-related area (affected side: MD = -150.63 kPa [95% CI = -212.05 to -89.21 kPa]; nonaffected side: MD = -170.34 kPa [95% CI = - 248.43 to -92.25]) than controls. No significant differences in PPTs over distant pain-free areas were observed. CONCLUSION: Low to moderate quality evidence suggests bilateral hypersensitivity to pressure pain at the symptomatic and contralateral/mirror areas in patients with upper extremity tendinopathies/overuse injury. Moderate quality of evidence supports bilateral pressure pain sensitivity in the segment-related area (neck) in lateral epicondylalgia, but not in subacromial impingement syndrome. No evidence of widespread pressure pain hyperalgesia was reported. IMPACT: Early identification of people with altered pain modulation could guide clinicians in treatment strategies. This review shows that there is a complex interplay between peripheral and central pain mechanisms in upper extremity tendinopathies/overuse injuries and that there likely are different subgroups of patients with upper extremity conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.264 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207