Pain rating schema: three distinct subgroups of individuals emerge when rating mild, moderate, and severe pain

Assessing how individuals conceptualize numeric pain ratings: validity and reliability of the Pain Schema Inventory (PSI-6) Short Form

Background

While numeric scales to represent pain intensity have been well validated, individuals use various conceptualizations when assigning a number to pain intensity, referred to as pain rating schema. The 18-item Pain Schema Inventory (PSI-18) quantifies pain rating schema by asking for numeric values for multiple mild, moderate or severe pain conditions. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of a shortened form of the PSI, using only 6 items (PSI-6).

Methods

A secondary analysis was performed on two existing datasets. The first (n = 641) involved a community-based population that completed the PSI-18. The second (n = 182) included participants with chronic pain who completed the PSI-6 twice, one week apart. We assessed face validity, convergent validity, offset biases, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of the PSI-6 compared to the PSI-18.

Results

Both the PSI-18 and PSI-6 demonstrated excellent face validity. The PSI-6 demonstrated excellent convergent validity relative to the PSI-18, with correlations from r = 0.88 to 0.92. Bland-Altman plots revealed offset biases near zero (< 0.22 on 0-10 scale) across all categories of mild, moderate, severe and average pain. Internal consistency was excellent, with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.91 and 0.80, for PSI-18 and PSI-6 respectively. Test-retest reliability of the PSI-6 was high with correlations from r = 0.70-0.76.

Conclusion

The PSI-6 is a valid and reliable tool to assess pain rating schema with reduced subject burden, to better interpret individuals' pain ratings and adjust for inter-individual variability.

Recovery from Resistance Exercise in Older Adults: A Systematic Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Resistance exercise is recommended for maintaining muscle mass and strength in older adults. However, little is known about exercise-induced muscle damage and recovery from resistance exercise in older adults. This may have implications for exercise prescription. This scoping review aimed to identify and provide a broad overview of the available literature, examine how this research has been conducted, and identify current knowledge gaps relating to exercise-induced muscle damage and recovery from resistance exercise in older adults.

METHODS

Studies were included if they included older adults aged 65 years and over, and reported any markers of exercise-induced muscle damage after performing a bout of resistance exercise. The following electronic databases were searched using a combination of MeSH terms and free text: MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science. Additionally, reference lists of identified articles were screened for eligible studies. Data were extracted from eligible studies using a standardised form. Studies were collated and are reported by emergent theme or outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 10,976 possible articles were identified and 27 original research articles were included. Findings are reported by theme; sex differences in recovery from resistance exercise, symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage, and biological markers of muscle damage.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the volume of available data, there is considerable variability in study protocols and inconsistency in findings reported. Across all measures of exercise-induced muscle damage, data in women are lacking when compared to males, and rectifying this discrepancy should be a focus of future studies. Current available data make it challenging to provide clear recommendations to those prescribing resistance exercise for older people.

Multisensory sensitivity differentiates between multiple chronic pain conditions and pain-free individuals

ABSTRACT

Multisensory sensitivity (MSS) to nonpainful stimuli has been identified as a risk factor for the presence of coexisting chronic pain conditions. However, it remains unclear whether MSS can differentiate pain phenotypes involving different levels of central sensitivity. Both pain-free and those with chronic pain, particularly fibromyalgia (FM), migraine, or low back pain (LBP) were recruited, with pain comorbidities assessed. MSS was highest in FM, followed by migraine, then LBP, and lowest in pain-free individuals (adjusted between condition Cohen d = 0.32-1.2, P ≤ 0.0007). However, when secondly grouping patients by the total number of pain comorbidities reported, those with a single pain condition (but not FM) did not have significantly elevated MSS vs pain-free individuals (adj d= 0.17, P = 0.18). Elevated MSS scores produced increased odds of having 2 or more pain comorbidities; OR [95% CI] =2.0 [1.15, 3.42], without, and 5.6 [2.74, 11.28], with FM ( P ≤ 0.0001). Furthermore, those with low MSS levels were 55% to 87% less likely to have ≥ 2 pain comorbidities with or without FM (OR 0.45 [0.22, 0.88]-0.13 [0.05, 0.39]; P ≤ 0.0001). Our findings support that MSS can differentiate between pain phenotypes with different degrees of expected central mechanism involvement and also serve as a risk and resilience marker for total coexisting chronic pain conditions. This supports the use of MSS as a marker of heightened central nervous system processing and thus may serve as a clinically feasible assessment to better profile pain phenotypes with the goal of improving personalized treatment.

Gender Differences in Seeking Health Care and Postintervention Pain Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Orthopedic Patients

Background:

Materials and Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Assessing Multisensory Sensitivity Across Scales: Using the Resulting Core Factors to Create the Multisensory Amplification Scale

Multisensory sensitivity (MSS), observed in some chronic pain patients, may reflect a generalized central nervous system sensitivity. While several surveys measure aspects of MSS, there remains no gold standard. We explored the underlying constructs of 4 MSS-related surveys (80 items in total) using factor analyses using REDCap surveys (N = 614, 58.7% with pain). Four core- and 6 associated-MSS factors were identified from the items assessed. None of these surveys addressed all major sensory systems and most included additional related constructs. A revised version of the Somatosensory Amplification Scale was developed, encompassing 5 core MSS systems: vision, hearing, smell, tactile, and internal bodily sensations: the 12-item Multisensory Amplification Scale (MSAS). The MSAS demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha = 0.82), test-retest reliability (ICC3,1 = 0.90), and construct validity in the original and in a new, separate cohort (R = 0.54-0.79, P < .0001). Further, the odds of having pain were 2-3.5 times higher in the highest sex-specific MSAS quartile relative to the lowest MSAS quartile, after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, and pain schema (P < .03). The MSAS provides a psychometrically comprehensive, brief, and promising tool for measuring the core-dimensions of MSS. PERSPECTIVE: Multiple multisensory sensitivity (MSS) tools are used, but without exploration of their underlying domains. We found several measures lacking core MSS domains, thus we modified an existing scale to encompass 5 core MSS domains: light, smell, sound, tactile, and internal bodily sensations using only 12 items, with good psychometric properties.

Experimental pain and fatigue induced by excessive chewing

Background

The study was aiming to optimize excessive gum chewing as an experimental model to induce jaw muscle pain and fatigue similar to those in painful TMDs with durations that would allow immediate investigations of jaw-motor function. Further, if any sex differences would be detected in the expression of pain.

Methods

This randomized, double blinded study included 31 healthy participants of both sexes. A standardized chewing protocol of either 40- or 60-min of chewing was used with a wash-out period of 1 week. Subjective fatigue, pain characteristics and functional measures were assessed. For statistical analyses, Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, Mann–Whitney Rank Sum test and Friedman’s ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc test were used.

Results

High subjective fatigue scores that lasted up to 20 min after the end of the trial were significantly induced both in the 40- and 60-min chewing trials (P <  0.001*). Significant but mild pain was induced only in the 60-min trial (P = 0.004*) and only in men (P = 0.04*). Also, the induced pain area was significantly bigger in the 60-min trial (P = 0.009*). However, this increase in pain and pain area did not last to the first 10-min follow-up. There were no significant differences neither between the 40- and 60-min chewing trials, except regarding the pain area (P = 0.008*), nor between the sexes.

Conclusion

Taken together, excessive chewing in its current form does not seem to be a proper pain experimental model. The model needs further adjustments in order to mimic TMD-pain especially in women and to prolong the pain duration.

Listening to Patients' Voices: Workarounds Patients Use to Construct Pain Intensity Ratings

This study analyzed patients' perspectives about a measure of current, usual, and extreme pain and a measure of activity-related pain. Thirty-one patients with osteoarthritis participated in focus groups. Researchers completed thematic analysis of transcripts using coding software and an inductive approach. Three emerging themes were that many factors affected patients' perceptions and ratings of pain intensity, patients used different approaches to construct pain ratings, and patients interpreted maximal response anchors differently. Particularly, novel findings were that patients evaluated pain fluctuation, location, duration, and quality when constructing pain intensity ratings. Also, activity items helped patients to remember pain and provided a valued context for communicating pain experiences. However, the activities needed to be sufficiently described and personally relevant. These findings further clarify the challenges patients face and the workarounds they use when rating pain intensity. The patients' suggestions for improved administration methods and items warrant future investigation.