Effect of experimental and clinical pain on the spatial distribution of muscle activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Musculoskeletal dysfunctions can significantly impair quality of life due to persistent pain and neuromuscular adaptations. While regional activation patterns in healthy muscles are well-documented, the effects of clinical and experimental pain on these patterns remain inconsistent. Accordingly, this study systematically evaluates the scientific evidence on alterations in the spatial distribution of muscle activity, quantified by shifts in the center of activity of high-density surface electromyography (HD-sEMG) signals, under experimental and clinical pain conditions. Methods A comprehensive database search was conducted from inception to June 6, 2025. The review included studies that evaluated the spatial distribution of muscle activity with HD-sEMG, analyzing two-dimensional shifts in the center of activity among individuals with clinical or experimentally induced pain. Methodological quality was assessed using the adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and evidence certainty was evaluated with the GRADE approach. A random-effects model was employed in the meta-analysis to account for variability across studies. Results Twenty studies involving 562 participants (231 control, 266 clinical pain, and 65 experimental pain) were included. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant shift in the center of activity in individuals with clinical pain compared with asymptomatic controls (SMD = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.15 to 1.84; p = 0.004), particularly those with chronic low back pain, with a low effect size (SMD = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.83; p = 0.04), indicating altered spatial distribution of muscle activity. A meta-analysis for experimental pain was not feasible due to limited data. Conclusions These findings underscore that clinical pain is associated with altered spatial distribution of muscle activity and emphasize the need for standardized methodologies and further research across diverse populations to enhance pain management and rehabilitation strategies. Systematic review registration This study was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (identifier CRD42024534320), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024534320 .
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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".