Fibromyalgia and Nociceptive Flexion Reflex (NFR) Threshold: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Identification of a Possible Source of Heterogeneity.

NFR fibromyalgia heterogeneity meta-regression nociceptive flexion reflex threshold sex differences systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

Journal of pain research
ISSN: 1178-7090
Titre abrégé: J Pain Res
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101540514

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 12 02 2021
accepted: 24 04 2021
entrez: 18 6 2021
pubmed: 19 6 2021
medline: 19 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The nociceptive flexion reflex is a physiological, polysynaptic reflex and refers to the level that an appropriate withdrawal response activates when a painful stimulus is detected. The nociceptive flexion reflex threshold (NFRthr) is defined as the lowest noxious stimulation intensity required to trigger a reflex motor response. Despite wide utilization and reports of the NFRthr, there has been no consensus on a standard and/or best method in assessment of the NFRthr. To systematically review the literature that compared the NFRthr between individuals with fibromyalgia (FM) and healthy controls; and to identify a source of heterogeneity in these trials. Employing the Cochrane methodology, we systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PsycINFO for clinical case-controlled trials assessing the NFRthr in individuals with and without fibromyalgia from inception to July 2019. Selected articles were passed for data extraction and meta-analyses. We utilized the random-effects model for meta-analysis assuming the true effect size may vary between studies. The sample sizes as a possible source of heterogeneity in multiple meta-regressions were investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis were registered in PROSPERO before data extraction. Nine studies met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologies and settings varied between studies, eg, stimulation intensity, duration, and the current increments. Only two articles comprehensively described and reported details about electromyogram amplification, latency, and sampling rate. Evidence from 423 patients with fibromyalgia and 326 healthy individuals suggested that there may not be a meaningful decreased NFRthr in patients (overall mean difference = -3.16; 95% CI:-6.82 to 0.50; Z = 1.69; P=0.09). Published effect sizes were not homogenous (I Evidence suggests that the nociceptive flexion reflex threshold may not be different between patients with fibromyalgia and healthy controls. A unified and rigorous methodology and sample size calculation (probably sex specific investigation) is required for the assessment of nociceptive flexion reflex threshold in patients with fibromyalgia.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The nociceptive flexion reflex is a physiological, polysynaptic reflex and refers to the level that an appropriate withdrawal response activates when a painful stimulus is detected. The nociceptive flexion reflex threshold (NFRthr) is defined as the lowest noxious stimulation intensity required to trigger a reflex motor response. Despite wide utilization and reports of the NFRthr, there has been no consensus on a standard and/or best method in assessment of the NFRthr.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature that compared the NFRthr between individuals with fibromyalgia (FM) and healthy controls; and to identify a source of heterogeneity in these trials.
METHODS METHODS
Employing the Cochrane methodology, we systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PsycINFO for clinical case-controlled trials assessing the NFRthr in individuals with and without fibromyalgia from inception to July 2019. Selected articles were passed for data extraction and meta-analyses. We utilized the random-effects model for meta-analysis assuming the true effect size may vary between studies. The sample sizes as a possible source of heterogeneity in multiple meta-regressions were investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis were registered in PROSPERO before data extraction.
RESULTS RESULTS
Nine studies met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologies and settings varied between studies, eg, stimulation intensity, duration, and the current increments. Only two articles comprehensively described and reported details about electromyogram amplification, latency, and sampling rate. Evidence from 423 patients with fibromyalgia and 326 healthy individuals suggested that there may not be a meaningful decreased NFRthr in patients (overall mean difference = -3.16; 95% CI:-6.82 to 0.50; Z = 1.69; P=0.09). Published effect sizes were not homogenous (I
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests that the nociceptive flexion reflex threshold may not be different between patients with fibromyalgia and healthy controls. A unified and rigorous methodology and sample size calculation (probably sex specific investigation) is required for the assessment of nociceptive flexion reflex threshold in patients with fibromyalgia.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34140802
doi: 10.2147/JPR.S306403
pii: 306403
pmc: PMC8203279
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

1653-1665

Informations de copyright

© 2021 Amiri et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors reported no conflicts of interest for this work.

Références

Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1990 Aug;16(3):681-98
pubmed: 2217965
Clin Rheumatol. 1994 Dec;13(4):605-10
pubmed: 7697963
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Aug;100:103-110
pubmed: 29339215
J Pain. 2017 Jul;18(7):757-777
pubmed: 28254585
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;61(10):991-6
pubmed: 18538991
JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12
pubmed: 7823387
Pain. 2011 Aug;152(8):1811-1820
pubmed: 21524852
J Pain. 2014 Feb;15(2):129-35
pubmed: 24342707
Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 May;90(5):680-92
pubmed: 25939940
Pain. 2012 Mar;153(3):602-618
pubmed: 22192712
Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jan;38(1):19-28
pubmed: 7818567
J Clin Neurosci. 2019 Jul;65:17-22
pubmed: 31080004
BMJ. 2011 Jul 22;343:d4002
pubmed: 21784880
Pain. 2018 Dec;159(12):2419-2420
pubmed: 30234698
Pain. 2013 Jul;154(7):1045-56
pubmed: 23622762
Pain. 2002 Mar;96(1-2):3-8
pubmed: 11932055
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Pain. 1991 Feb;44(2):131-138
pubmed: 2052379
Pain. 2010 Aug;150(2):309-318
pubmed: 20557999
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Jun;76(6):576-82
pubmed: 7763159
Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1785-1805
pubmed: 27683581
Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;133(4):581-624
pubmed: 17592957
Rheumatol Int. 2013 Sep;33(9):2365-72
pubmed: 23553516
Pain. 2018 Dec;159(12):2421-2436
pubmed: 30234696
J Pain. 2011 Jul;12(7):782-91
pubmed: 21481651
Pain. 2005 Aug;116(3):359-365
pubmed: 15979791
Pain. 1992 Aug;50(2):177-187
pubmed: 1408314
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1559-73
pubmed: 12111920
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1-76
pubmed: 12583822
Arthritis Rheum. 2003 May;48(5):1420-9
pubmed: 12746916
Pain. 2007 Apr;128(3):244-253
pubmed: 17070999
Stat Med. 1999 Oct 30;18(20):2693-708
pubmed: 10521860
Stat Med. 2003 Sep 15;22(17):2693-710
pubmed: 12939780
Pain. 2008 Dec;140(3):465-471
pubmed: 18977598
Pain. 2004 Jan;107(1-2):7-15
pubmed: 14715383
Somatosens Mot Res. 2005 Sep;22(3):207-11
pubmed: 16338828

Auteurs

Mohammadreza Amiri (M)

KITE Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, M5G 2A2, Canada.

Jamie Rhudy (J)

College of Arts & Sciences Psychology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA.

Kei Masani (K)

KITE Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, M5G 2A2, Canada.
Department of Medicine, Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S, Canada.

Dinesh Kumbhare (D)

KITE Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, M5G 2A2, Canada.
Department of Medicine, Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S, Canada.

Classifications MeSH