Randomized cross-over evaluation of investigator gender on pain thresholds in healthy volunteers.

Q1 Medicine
GMS German Medical Science Pub Date : 2021-11-29 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.3205/000301
Anna Sellgren Engskov, Ilja Lejbman, Jonas Åkeson
{"title":"Randomized cross-over evaluation of investigator gender on pain thresholds in healthy volunteers.","authors":"Anna Sellgren Engskov,&nbsp;Ilja Lejbman,&nbsp;Jonas Åkeson","doi":"10.3205/000301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and aims:</b> This randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers was designed primarily to evaluate the potential impact of investigator gender on electrical pain threshold (EPT) and corresponding pain intensity levels, and secondly to evaluate potential differences in those interventions between female and male study participants. <b>Methods:</b> Forty adult volunteers (22 females) were included. An electrical stimulation device was used to determine EPT levels (in pain magnitude scores) in series of three in each study participant - once by a female, and once by a male investigator - according to a predefined cross-over design schedule. Corresponding levels of pain intensity were scored on a visual analog scale (VAS) slide ruler. <b>Results:</b> Study data was obtained and analysed in all participants. Significantly higher EPT levels were determined by the female investigator compared with the male investigator (median 22 (IQR 12-31) vs. 8 (6-10) pain magnitude scores; <i>p</i><0.0001), despite similar levels of reported pain intensity (1.9 (1.2-3.0) vs. 2.0 (1.1-3.4) VAS units; <i>p</i>>0.300). There were no differences in EPT levels between female and male subjects evaluated by female (<i>p</i>>0.300) and male (<i>p</i>=0.125) investigators, or between the first and second series of stimulation (<i>p</i>>0.300). <b>Conclusions:</b> Our finding of significantly higher EPT levels when study participants of both genders - despite no difference in reported pain intensity - were evaluated by a female than by a male investigator, indicates a potential impact of investigator gender on the individual perception of pain. <b>Implications:</b> By contributing to a better understanding of how individual pain threshold levels are potentially influenced by investigator gender, this study might facilitate future evaluation of pain conditions in both preclinical and clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":39243,"journal":{"name":"GMS German Medical Science","volume":"19 ","pages":"Doc14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8662746/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS German Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/000301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background and aims: This randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers was designed primarily to evaluate the potential impact of investigator gender on electrical pain threshold (EPT) and corresponding pain intensity levels, and secondly to evaluate potential differences in those interventions between female and male study participants. Methods: Forty adult volunteers (22 females) were included. An electrical stimulation device was used to determine EPT levels (in pain magnitude scores) in series of three in each study participant - once by a female, and once by a male investigator - according to a predefined cross-over design schedule. Corresponding levels of pain intensity were scored on a visual analog scale (VAS) slide ruler. Results: Study data was obtained and analysed in all participants. Significantly higher EPT levels were determined by the female investigator compared with the male investigator (median 22 (IQR 12-31) vs. 8 (6-10) pain magnitude scores; p<0.0001), despite similar levels of reported pain intensity (1.9 (1.2-3.0) vs. 2.0 (1.1-3.4) VAS units; p>0.300). There were no differences in EPT levels between female and male subjects evaluated by female (p>0.300) and male (p=0.125) investigators, or between the first and second series of stimulation (p>0.300). Conclusions: Our finding of significantly higher EPT levels when study participants of both genders - despite no difference in reported pain intensity - were evaluated by a female than by a male investigator, indicates a potential impact of investigator gender on the individual perception of pain. Implications: By contributing to a better understanding of how individual pain threshold levels are potentially influenced by investigator gender, this study might facilitate future evaluation of pain conditions in both preclinical and clinical settings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

研究者性别对健康志愿者疼痛阈值的随机交叉评价。
背景与目的:本研究旨在评估研究者性别对电痛阈值(EPT)和相应的疼痛强度水平的潜在影响,其次评估这些干预措施在女性和男性研究参与者之间的潜在差异。方法:纳入40名成年志愿者(女性22名)。根据预先设定的交叉设计时间表,研究人员使用电刺激装置来确定每个研究参与者的EPT水平(疼痛程度评分),每三个参与者一次是女性,一次是男性。用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对相应的疼痛强度进行评分。结果:获得并分析了所有参与者的研究数据。与男性研究者相比,女性研究者的EPT水平明显更高(疼痛程度评分中位数为22 (IQR 12-31)比8 (6-10);页> 0.300)。经女性(p>0.300)和男性(p=0.125)研究者评估的女性和男性受试者的EPT水平没有差异,第一次和第二次刺激之间也没有差异(p>0.300)。结论:我们发现,尽管报告的疼痛强度没有差异,但由女性研究者评估的两种性别的研究参与者的EPT水平明显高于由男性研究者评估的参与者,这表明研究者的性别对个体疼痛感知的潜在影响。意义:通过有助于更好地理解个体疼痛阈值水平如何受到研究者性别的潜在影响,本研究可能有助于临床前和临床环境中疼痛状况的未来评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
GMS German Medical Science
GMS German Medical Science Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书