4.2 Review

Associations between psychological variables and pain in experimental pain models. A systematic review

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 59, 期 9, 页码 1094-1102

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12555

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe association between pain and psychological characteristics has been widely debated. Thus, it remains unclear whether an individual's psychological profile influences a particular pain experience, or if previous pain experience contributes to a certain psychological profile. Translational studies performed in healthy volunteers may provide knowledge concerning psychological factors in healthy individuals as well as basic pain physiology. The aim of this review was to investigate whether psychological vulnerability or specific psychological variables in healthy volunteers are predictive of the level of pain following experimental pain models. MethodsA systematic search on the databases, PubMed, Embase, Cochcrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed during September 2014. All trials investigating the association between psychological variables and experimental pain in healthy volunteers were considered for inclusion. ResultsTwenty-nine trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2637 healthy volunteers. The included trials investigated a total of 45 different psychological tests and 27 different types of pain models. The retrieved trials did not present a sufficiently homogenous group to perform meta-analysis. The collected results were diverse. A total of 16 trials suggested that psychological factors may predict the level of pain, seven studies found divergent results, and six studies found no significant association between psychological variables and experimental pain. ConclusionPsychological factors may have predictive value when investigating experimental pain. However, due to substantial heterogeneity and methodological shortcomings of the published literature, firm conclusions are not possible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据