4.6 Article

Differences in somatic perception in female patients with irritable bowel syndrome with and without fibromyalgia

期刊

PAIN
卷 84, 期 2-3, 页码 297-307

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00215-8

关键词

irritable bowel syndrome; fibromyalgia; female; somatic perception

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01RR00425-27S2] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and fibromyalgia (FM) an considered chronic syndromes of altered visceral and somatic perception, respectively. Because there is a significant overlap of IBS and FM, shared pathophysiological mechanisms have been suggested. Although visceral perception has been well studied in IBS, somatic perception has npt. Aims: To compare hypervigilance and altered sensory perception in response to somatic stimuli in patients with IBS, IBS + FM, and healthy controls. Methods: Eleven IBS females (mean age 40), 11 IBS + FM females (mean age 46), and ten healthy female controls (mean age 39) rated pain perception in response to pressure stimuli administered to active somatic tender points, non-render control points and the T-12 dermatome, delivered in a predictable ascending series, and delivered in an unpredictable randomized fashion (fixed stimulus). Results. Although IBS patients had similar pain thresholds during the ascending series compared with controls, they were found to have somatic hypoalgesia with higher pain thresholds and lower pain frequency and severity during fixed stimulus series compared with IBS + FM patients and controls (P < 0.05), Patients with IBS + FM were more bothered by the somatic stimuli and had somatic hyperalgesia with lower pain thresholds and higher pain frequency and severity. Conclusions: Both hypervigilance and somatic hypoalgesia contribute to the altered somatic perception in IBS patients. Co-morbidity with FM results in somatic hyperalgesia in IBS patients. (C) 2000 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

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