4.6 Review

Quantitative sensory testing in patients with migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PAIN
卷 159, 期 7, 页码 1202-1223

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001231

关键词

Migraine; Quantitative sensory testing; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. New England Fund, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is widely used to assess somatosensory function by application of controlled stimuli across a variety of modalities. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to synthesize QST results across a wide array of studies of patients with migraine to identify the QST parameters that are reliably different between patients with migraine and healthy controls. In addition, we aimed to determine whether such differences vary according to stimulus location. A comprehensive literature search (up to January 2017) was conducted, which included studies comparing QST parameters between patients with migraine and healthy controls. For each QST modality, we calculated up to 3 meta-analyses for combined (combined data from multiple testing locations), local (head and neck), and nonlocal (outside the head or neck) locations. A total of 65 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Lower heat and pressure pain thresholds were observed in patients with migraine compared with healthy controls in the combined locations. Importantly, lower pressure pain threshold in patients with migraine was found in local areas but not in nonlocal areas. In addition, patients with migraine had higher pain ratings to cold suprathreshold stimuli for combined and nonlocal areas, and higher pain ratings to electrical suprathreshold stimuli for nonlocal areas. This meta-analysis indicates that the alterations in nociceptive processing of patients with migraine may be modality, measure, and location specific. These results provide researchers and clinicians the evidence to choose QST parameters optimally suited for differentiating patients with migraine and healthy controls.

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

4.6
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