你不知道的事情会伤害到别人。疼痛研究中刺激强度标定的系统综述。

IF 5.9 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Julia Badzińska, Magdalena Żegleń, Łukasz Kryst, Przemysław Bąbel
{"title":"你不知道的事情会伤害到别人。疼痛研究中刺激强度标定的系统综述。","authors":"Julia Badzińska, Magdalena Żegleń, Łukasz Kryst, Przemysław Bąbel","doi":"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Calibration of pain stimuli is critical in experimental pain research because it makes it possible to adjust stimulus intensity to match individual pain sensitivity. Despite its importance, precise descriptions of calibration procedures are lacking in the literature, thus hindering the ability to replicate studies. The aim of this systematic review is to fill this gap by evaluating and categorizing calibration methods used in pain studies involving electrodermal stimuli in healthy adult volunteers. A search of 9 databases identified 51 relevant articles published between 2018 and 2024, which were analyzed regarding calibration methods and their effectiveness. The review identified 2 main calibration methods, namely the method of limits and the staircase method, along with 3 techniques, namely ascending, descending, and random calibration. The findings reveal that 69% of studies did not verify the effectiveness of their calibration processes. Among those that did, varying degrees of success were observed. The ascending calibration technique was less precise, while combined ascending and pseudorandom calibration offered better matching of stimulus intensity but still required optimization. However, the data were insufficient to definitively determine which method was the most accurate. There is still a lack of consistent approaches to reporting calibration in the literature, which can lead to difficulties in interpreting results and comparing different studies. Future research should focus on comparing these methods to identify the most effective approaches and explore factors influencing calibration success.</p>","PeriodicalId":19921,"journal":{"name":"PAIN®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What you don't know can hurt others. A systematic review on calibration of stimulus intensity in pain research.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Badzińska, Magdalena Żegleń, Łukasz Kryst, Przemysław Bąbel\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003588\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Calibration of pain stimuli is critical in experimental pain research because it makes it possible to adjust stimulus intensity to match individual pain sensitivity. Despite its importance, precise descriptions of calibration procedures are lacking in the literature, thus hindering the ability to replicate studies. The aim of this systematic review is to fill this gap by evaluating and categorizing calibration methods used in pain studies involving electrodermal stimuli in healthy adult volunteers. A search of 9 databases identified 51 relevant articles published between 2018 and 2024, which were analyzed regarding calibration methods and their effectiveness. The review identified 2 main calibration methods, namely the method of limits and the staircase method, along with 3 techniques, namely ascending, descending, and random calibration. The findings reveal that 69% of studies did not verify the effectiveness of their calibration processes. Among those that did, varying degrees of success were observed. The ascending calibration technique was less precise, while combined ascending and pseudorandom calibration offered better matching of stimulus intensity but still required optimization. However, the data were insufficient to definitively determine which method was the most accurate. There is still a lack of consistent approaches to reporting calibration in the literature, which can lead to difficulties in interpreting results and comparing different studies. Future research should focus on comparing these methods to identify the most effective approaches and explore factors influencing calibration success.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PAIN®\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PAIN®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003588\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"PAIN®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003588","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:疼痛刺激的校准在疼痛实验研究中至关重要,因为它可以调整刺激强度以匹配个体的疼痛敏感性。尽管它很重要,但文献中缺乏对校准程序的精确描述,从而阻碍了重复研究的能力。本系统综述的目的是通过评估和分类健康成人志愿者皮肤电刺激疼痛研究中使用的校准方法来填补这一空白。通过对9个数据库的检索,确定了2018年至2024年间发表的51篇相关文章,分析了校准方法及其有效性。评审确定了2种主要的校准方法,即极限法和阶梯法,以及3种技术,即上升、下降和随机校准。研究结果显示,69%的研究没有验证其校准过程的有效性。在那些这样做的人中,观察到不同程度的成功。上升校正技术精度较低,而上升校正与伪随机校正相结合能较好地匹配刺激强度,但仍需优化。然而,数据不足以确定哪种方法最准确。文献中仍然缺乏一致的报告校准方法,这可能导致解释结果和比较不同研究的困难。未来的研究应侧重于比较这些方法,以确定最有效的方法,并探讨影响校准成功的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What you don't know can hurt others. A systematic review on calibration of stimulus intensity in pain research.

Abstract: Calibration of pain stimuli is critical in experimental pain research because it makes it possible to adjust stimulus intensity to match individual pain sensitivity. Despite its importance, precise descriptions of calibration procedures are lacking in the literature, thus hindering the ability to replicate studies. The aim of this systematic review is to fill this gap by evaluating and categorizing calibration methods used in pain studies involving electrodermal stimuli in healthy adult volunteers. A search of 9 databases identified 51 relevant articles published between 2018 and 2024, which were analyzed regarding calibration methods and their effectiveness. The review identified 2 main calibration methods, namely the method of limits and the staircase method, along with 3 techniques, namely ascending, descending, and random calibration. The findings reveal that 69% of studies did not verify the effectiveness of their calibration processes. Among those that did, varying degrees of success were observed. The ascending calibration technique was less precise, while combined ascending and pseudorandom calibration offered better matching of stimulus intensity but still required optimization. However, the data were insufficient to definitively determine which method was the most accurate. There is still a lack of consistent approaches to reporting calibration in the literature, which can lead to difficulties in interpreting results and comparing different studies. Future research should focus on comparing these methods to identify the most effective approaches and explore factors influencing calibration success.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PAIN®
PAIN® 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
8.10%
发文量
242
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: PAIN® is the official publication of the International Association for the Study of Pain and publishes original research on the nature,mechanisms and treatment of pain.PAIN® provides a forum for the dissemination of research in the basic and clinical sciences of multidisciplinary interest.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信