{"title":"慢性背痛和慢性广泛性疼痛的阿尔法峰值频率不同。","authors":"Natalie McLain, Rocco Cavaleri, Jason Kutch","doi":"10.1002/ejp.4737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low peak alpha frequency (PAF) is an electroencephalography (EEG) outcome associated reliably with high acute pain sensitivity. However, existing research suggests that the relationship between PAF and chronic pain is more variable. This variability could be attributable to chronic pain groups typically being examined as homogenous populations, without consideration being given to potential diagnosis-specific differences. Indeed, while emerging work has compared individuals with chronic pain to healthy controls, no previous studies have examined differences in PAF between diagnoses or across chronic pain subtypes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To address this gap, we reanalysed a dataset of resting state EEG previously used to demonstrate a lack of difference in PAF between individuals with chronic pain and healthy controls. In this new analysis, we separated patients by diagnosis before comparing PAF across three subgroups: chronic widespread pain (n = 30), chronic back pain (n = 38), and healthy controls (n = 87).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We replicate the original finding of no significant difference between chronic pain groups and controls, but also find that individuals with widespread pain had significantly higher global average PAF values than those of people with chronic back pain [p = 0.028, β = 0.25 Hz] after controlling for age, sex, and depression.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These novel findings reveal PAF values in individuals with chronic pain may be diagnosis-specific and not uniformly shifted from the values of healthy controls. Future studies should account for diagnosis and be cautious with exploring homogenous 'chronic pain' classifications during investigations of PAF.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>Our work suggests that, contrary to previous hypotheses, inter-individual differences in PAF reflect diagnosis-specific mechanisms rather than the general presence of chronic pain, and therefore may have important implications for future work regarding individually-tailored pain management strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12021,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peak alpha frequency differs between chronic back pain and chronic widespread pain.\",\"authors\":\"Natalie McLain, Rocco Cavaleri, Jason Kutch\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejp.4737\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low peak alpha frequency (PAF) is an electroencephalography (EEG) outcome associated reliably with high acute pain sensitivity. However, existing research suggests that the relationship between PAF and chronic pain is more variable. This variability could be attributable to chronic pain groups typically being examined as homogenous populations, without consideration being given to potential diagnosis-specific differences. Indeed, while emerging work has compared individuals with chronic pain to healthy controls, no previous studies have examined differences in PAF between diagnoses or across chronic pain subtypes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To address this gap, we reanalysed a dataset of resting state EEG previously used to demonstrate a lack of difference in PAF between individuals with chronic pain and healthy controls. In this new analysis, we separated patients by diagnosis before comparing PAF across three subgroups: chronic widespread pain (n = 30), chronic back pain (n = 38), and healthy controls (n = 87).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We replicate the original finding of no significant difference between chronic pain groups and controls, but also find that individuals with widespread pain had significantly higher global average PAF values than those of people with chronic back pain [p = 0.028, β = 0.25 Hz] after controlling for age, sex, and depression.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These novel findings reveal PAF values in individuals with chronic pain may be diagnosis-specific and not uniformly shifted from the values of healthy controls. Future studies should account for diagnosis and be cautious with exploring homogenous 'chronic pain' classifications during investigations of PAF.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>Our work suggests that, contrary to previous hypotheses, inter-individual differences in PAF reflect diagnosis-specific mechanisms rather than the general presence of chronic pain, and therefore may have important implications for future work regarding individually-tailored pain management strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4737\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4737","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Peak alpha frequency differs between chronic back pain and chronic widespread pain.
Background: Low peak alpha frequency (PAF) is an electroencephalography (EEG) outcome associated reliably with high acute pain sensitivity. However, existing research suggests that the relationship between PAF and chronic pain is more variable. This variability could be attributable to chronic pain groups typically being examined as homogenous populations, without consideration being given to potential diagnosis-specific differences. Indeed, while emerging work has compared individuals with chronic pain to healthy controls, no previous studies have examined differences in PAF between diagnoses or across chronic pain subtypes.
Methods: To address this gap, we reanalysed a dataset of resting state EEG previously used to demonstrate a lack of difference in PAF between individuals with chronic pain and healthy controls. In this new analysis, we separated patients by diagnosis before comparing PAF across three subgroups: chronic widespread pain (n = 30), chronic back pain (n = 38), and healthy controls (n = 87).
Results: We replicate the original finding of no significant difference between chronic pain groups and controls, but also find that individuals with widespread pain had significantly higher global average PAF values than those of people with chronic back pain [p = 0.028, β = 0.25 Hz] after controlling for age, sex, and depression.
Conclusions: These novel findings reveal PAF values in individuals with chronic pain may be diagnosis-specific and not uniformly shifted from the values of healthy controls. Future studies should account for diagnosis and be cautious with exploring homogenous 'chronic pain' classifications during investigations of PAF.
Significance: Our work suggests that, contrary to previous hypotheses, inter-individual differences in PAF reflect diagnosis-specific mechanisms rather than the general presence of chronic pain, and therefore may have important implications for future work regarding individually-tailored pain management strategies.
期刊介绍:
European Journal of Pain (EJP) publishes clinical and basic science research papers relevant to all aspects of pain and its management, including specialties such as anaesthesia, dentistry, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopaedics, palliative care, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation; socio-economic aspects of pain are also covered.
Regular sections in the journal are as follows:
• Editorials and Commentaries
• Position Papers and Guidelines
• Reviews
• Original Articles
• Letters
• Bookshelf
The journal particularly welcomes clinical trials, which are published on an occasional basis.
Research articles are published under the following subject headings:
• Neurobiology
• Neurology
• Experimental Pharmacology
• Clinical Pharmacology
• Psychology
• Behavioural Therapy
• Epidemiology
• Cancer Pain
• Acute Pain
• Clinical Trials.