Research output per year
Research output per year
Kristian K Petersen*, Henrik B Vaegter, Audun Stubhaug, André Wolff, Brigitte E Scammell, Lars Arendt-Nielsen, Dennis B Larsen
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review
Studies have suggested that quantitative sensory testing (QST) might hold a predictive value for the development of chronic postoperative pain and the response to pharmacological interventions. This review systematically summarizes the current evidence on the predictive value of QST for chronic postoperative pain and the effect of pharmacological interventions. The main outcome measures were posttreatment pain intensity, pain relief, presence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, responders of 30% and 50% pain relief, or validated questionnaires on pain and disability. A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE yielded 25 studies on surgical interventions and 11 on pharmacological interventions. Seventeen surgical and 11 pharmacological studies reported an association between preoperative or pretreatment QST and chronic postoperative pain or analgesic effect. The most commonly assessed QST modalities were pressure stimuli (17 studies), temporal summation of pain (TSP, 14 studies), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM, 16 studies). Of those, the dynamic QST parameters TSP (50%) and CPM (44%) were most frequently associated with chronic postoperative pain and analgesic effects. A large heterogeneity in methods for assessing TSP (n = 4) and CPM (n = 7) was found. Overall, most studies demonstrated low-to-moderate levels of risk of bias in study design, attrition, prognostic factors, outcome, and statistical analyses. This systematic review demonstrates that TSP and CPM show the most consistent predictive values for chronic postoperative pain and analgesic effect, but the heterogeneous methodologies reduce the generalizability and hence call for methodological guidelines.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Pain |
Volume | 162 |
Issue number | 1 |
Pages (from-to) | 31-44 |
Number of pages | 14 |
ISSN | 0304-3959 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jan 2021 |
Research output: Book/Report › Doctoral thesis