SIGNS OF CENTRAL SENSITIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS AND CHRONIC COMORBIDITIES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSES OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES

Mattia Sgarbi, Davide D’Alessandro, Matteo Castaldo, Daniel Feller
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.02.23285365

Abstract

Objectives this review aimed to investigate the presence of signs of central sensitization in patients with musculoskeletal disorders and associated chronic comorbidities.

Methods we conducted a systematic review (prespecified protocol CRD42021228970). Two authors independently searched for primary studies published between 2000 and 2021 in Web of Science and PubMed databases. We searched for studies that investigate the presence of signs of central sensitization in patients with musculoskeletal disorder or migraine and a chronic comorbidity. Two authors independently evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies using the “The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools”. When studies were judged homogenous enough, we performed a random effect meta–analysis.

Results we included 14 observational studies. Overall, patients with musculoskeletal disorders or migraine with an associated comorbidity showed more signs of central sensitization compared with healthy subjects.

The quantitative analysis showed that patients with temporomandibular disorders and chronic comorbidities, compared to patients with temporomandibular disorders without comorbidites, have a decreased pressure pain thresholds measured in the masseter area [SMD: -0.52; CI 95%: - 1.02 to -0.03; I2: 67%] and in the trapezius area [SMD: -0.55; CI 95%: -0.96 to -0.14; I2: 0%].

Patients with migraine, chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis and associated fibromyalgia present more signs of central sensitization, measured in different modalities, than subjects without comorbidity.

Conclusions we demonstrated that, in general, patients with musculoskeletal disorders and an associated comorbidity showed an increased incidence of signs of central sensitization compared to healthy subjects and patients with musculoskeletal disorders without comorbities.

1. Introduction

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSK-D) (e.g., osteoarthritis (OA), low back pain (LBP) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)) are among the leading causes of long term pain and physical disability in the general population.1,2

In MSK-D, signs of central sensitization (CS) are often found,3–6 contributing to the high rate of physical disability associated with these pathologies. CS is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as an “increased responsiveness of nociceptive neurons in the central nervous system to their normal or subthreshold afferent input”.7 Signs of CS are also found in subjects that have experienced acute injuries such as trauma,8 surgery9,10 or sprains,11 and it is believed to be one of the main causes of the persistence of long lasting symptoms in MSK-D12–17 and in chronic systemic inflammatory diseases.3

As reported by Curatolo and Arendt-Nielsen,18 currently, there is not a gold standard measurement method for assessing CS, and the current knowledge on the presence and mechanisms of central hypersensitivity stems mostly from basic and laboratory research. Humans’ very limited accessibility of nociceptive pathways is an obvious constraint in the clinical research.18 Therefore, the main evidence for central hypersensitivity in human pain is deduced from indirect measures:18 typically, signs and symptoms of CS include hyperalgesia, allodynia, widespread pain, and other such as fatigue, sleep disturbances, headache and intestinal problems.19,20

In clinical practice, the most valuable tools used to identify patients with signs of CS are (as summarized by Den Boer et al.21,22): the central sensitization inventory (CSI), the pressure pain thresholds (PPT) (where an algometer performs pressure stimulation on different parts of the body, and PPT are measured), and monofilaments (where a thick thread applied several times with a time interval is used to measure temporal summation (TS)).

MSK-D, such as LBP, OA, and RA, often coexist with chronic medical conditions (i.e. comorbidities), such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, depression, headache, overweight and obesity.2,23,24 The general health state, and consequently the presence chronic comorbidities, have emerged as two important factors in maintaining CS.25 Hence, patients with MSK-D and associated comorbidities could be at an increased risk of developing hypersensitivity to pain compared to patients with only a MSK-D or healthy subjects, as stated by the review of Costa et al.26 on temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, in the literature there are not data concerning the degree of CS in other types of MSK-D with chronic comorbidities. It could be important to understand if this characteristic is common to all patients with MSK-D and associated comorbidities, because CS could be one of the reasons for the maintenance of long-term musculoskeletal pain and symptoms in patients with comorbidities.

Therefore, this systematic review (SR) aimed to investigate and summarize the literature concerning the presence of signs of CS in patients with MSK-D associated with chronic comorbidities.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Study design and protocol

We registered the present SR protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42021228970). We reported the following manuscript according to the “PRISMA 2020 statement”.27

2.2 Eligibility criteria

We included observational studies (i.e., cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, cohort studies) and clinical trials that measured signs of CS in patients at least 18 years old with a MSK-D (either acute or chronic) associated with one or more chronic comorbidities. We considered two type of headache, migraine and tension type headache (TTH), in the group of MSK-D because, despite being a neurological disorders, often have associated muscoloskeletal dysfunctions.28–30 In addition, physiotherapy is increasingly used as an effective alternative to drugs to manage pain and improve disability in these types of headache.31,32 As comorbidity, we mean any type of chronic pathology, the pathology can involve any system. For this reason, the same chronic MSK-D (better known as persistent MSK-D) (e.g. OA, RA, chronic LBP (CLBP)) and any type of headache were considered to be compatible also as associated comorbidity in this SR. Fibromyalgia (FMS), as chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome, was not considered a MSK-D but was considered comorbidities because these three conditions are part of the central sensitivity syndrome (CSS).33 This term describes a group of medically indistinct (or nonspecific) disorders, for which CS may be a common part of their etiology.33–35 Furthermore, we considered insomnia, sleep disorders, psychological trauma, and drug abuse as comorbidity only if a medical doctor diagnosed them according to the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders-5”36 and therefore it was not enough to be self-reported by the patients. The diagnosis of the comorbid chronic medical condition had to be done before assessing the signs of CS. To be included, studies had to compare patient samples with a group composed of healthy subjects, patients with only MSK-D, or patients with a general chronic comorbidity.

We considered signs of CS the ones measured only with the methods indicated by den Boer et al.21

2.3 Search strategy and study selection process

We searched MEDLINE (through PubMed) and WEB OF SCIENCE (WoS), from 2000 to December 2021 since the reporting of CS in MSK-D has changed and increased substantially within the last 20 years. Studies must be published in indexed journals, in English or Italian.

Two authors independently went through the study selection process using an online electronic systematic review software package (Rayyan QCRI)37 to organize and track the process. Any discrepancy was resolved by consensus or by the arbitrary decision of a third review author.

The full search strategy is reported in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1

Applied search terms during systematic

2.4 Data extraction

Two reviewers independently performed the data extraction process. Any discrepancy was resolved consensually or through the arbitrary decision of a third review author.

The extracted data included: bibliographic information, study design, country, sample size, gender, age, BMI, pathologies, and measurements of signs of CS with their results.

All outcomes were continuous. Therefore, we extracted the mean change from baseline to endpoint (or, alternatively, the mean score at endpoint), the standard deviation (SD) or standard error of these values, and the number of patients included in the analyses.

We asked study authors to supply missing data when necessary.

2.5 Methodological assessment

Two independent authors conducted the risk of bias assessment. Any discrepancy was resolved consensually or through the arbitrary decision of a third author.

We assessed the risk of bias (RoB) with the screening tool for cross-sectional studies produced by “The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools”38.

2.6 Data analysis

When studies were judged homogenous enough, we performed a random–effect meta-analysis (MA). Otherwise, we reported the results through a qualitative synthesis.

The heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics and its interpretation provided by the Cochrane handbook39.

The analysis was carried out using RevMan40.

3. Results

From database investigations, we retrieved 14199 records, 1633 of which were duplicates. We screened the titles and abstracts of the remaining 12566 records. From these, we selected 32 reports for full-text analysis. Ultimately, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the SR (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

PRISMA Flow Diagram

3.1 Characteristics of the included studies

Table 2 reports the characteristics of the included studies.

View this table:
Table 2

Characteristics of included studies

All the included studies were analytical observational studies: six cross–sectional studies41–46 and eight case–control studies47–54. One52 was published in 2004 and another46 in 2009, while all the others29–40 have been published in the last decade.

The sample sizes ranged from 33 to 208 patients. All studies included more female than male, with four studies that recruited only women. The total number of subjects assessed was 1304, of which 1056 were women. The mean age of recruited patients was 45.4, ranging from 18 to 78 years old. TMD42–44,46,47,49,53, knee OA (KOA)45,51,54, CLBP41, RA48, and migraine50,52 are found as primary disorders (MSK-D or migraine) in the samples included in this SR. TTH53, migraine42,43,47, chronic neck pain (CNP)44, insomnia46, and FMS49 are found as comorbidities in patients with TMD. Insomnia54, FMS45, and controlateral KOA51 are found as comorbidities in patients with KOA. Lastly, in samples of subjects with migraine50,52, CLBP41, and RA48, the included comorbidity is FMS, that was the most frequently comorbidity found . The most present MSK-D was TMD, investigated in seven studies. No studies investigated samples with more than one chronic comorbidity in association with the primary disorder (MSK-D or migraine). As explained above, any type of headache and persistent MSK-D, since they comprise the only necessary feature of chronic pathology, have also been included among the comorbidities. Therefore, two studies include samples with two persistent MSK-D present at the same time (TMD and CNP44, bilateral KOA51).

Eleven authors27–30,32–36,38,39 used quantitative sensory testing (QST), which evaluates the PPT, thermal pain threshold (TPT: cold-cPT and heat-hPT), and electrical pain threshold (EPT), to measure CS. Four studies45,49,53,54 used dynamic QST (three thermal TS and two mechanical TS) to assess the CS’s signs. In three studies41,45,54 the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) was used. Kaplan et al.48 and Peres et al.,52 on the other hand, used different methods to measure signs of CS: the first one used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while the second used the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) glutamate levels.

3.2 Methodological assessment of the included studies

Table 3 reports the methodological assessment of the included studies.

View this table:
Table 3.

Risk of bias assessment of observational studies

Overall, all the studies resulted in a low or moderate risk of bias.

Inclusion criteria, conditions assessment, outcome measurement, and statistical analysis were evaluated at low risk of bias for all the included studies.

The item “exposure measurement” was judged “unclear” in Neville et al.45 Regarding the items on “study subjects” and “setting”, we judged them “not applicable” in Giamberardino et al.,50 Sato et al.,53 and Peres et al.52 Moreover, “confounding factors” and “strategies to deal with confounding factors” were judged inconsistently: in five42,45,49,52,53 studies they were not clearly defined, whereas Giamberardino et al.50 and Pereira Silva Moreira et al.51 omitted them entirely. Finally, “strategies to deal with confounding factors” were not clearly defined by three other authors43,44,48 and not reported by Smith et al.46

3.3 Summary of the results

3.3.1 Temporomandibular disorder

Seven42–44,46,47,49,53 studies measured signs of CS in patients with TMD and four different chronic comorbidity: headache (migraine or TTH), insomnia, FMS, and CNP. All studies were similar regarding inclusion criteria. Six42–44,46,47,49 studies were homogenous regarding the modality of assessment. Thus, it was possible to performed fifteen different MA aggregating the results of these papers (see Fig. 2). Based on the results of the statistical analysis, the estimated Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) in the PPT measurement was decreased in patients with TMD and associated comorbidities versus healthy subjects and was -1.10 [Confidence Interval

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Forest plot of comparison between MSK-D and comorbility patients vs comorbility patients/healthy subjects for presence of signs of CS. SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variable; CI, confidence intervals

(CI) 95%: -1.47 to -0.74; I2: 0%] in the temporal area and -1.22 [CI 95%: -1.62 to -0.82; I2: 14%] in the masseter area. These data confirm higher pain sensitivity in the group with TMD and chronic comorbidity. When comparing patients with TMD and associated comorbidities to subjects with only TMD, the SMD in the PPT measure were statistically significantly lower in favor of the first group mentioned in two body regions: estimated data were -0.52 [CI 95%: -1.02 to -0.03; I2: 67%] in the masseter area, and -0.55 [CI 95%: -0.96 to -0.14; I2: 0%] in trapezius area. Instead, when the latter measure is calculated by comparing patients with TMD and chronic comorbidities and healthy subjects, the CI intersected zero making the lower PPT value not statistically significant in the trapezius area [-0.76 with 95% between -1.82 and 0.31]. When PPT is measured in the suboccipital, ophthalmic and forearm regions and compared between subjects with TMD and patients with TMD and associated comorbidities, the point values are decreased in all regions in the second group mentioned showing more signs of CS, but no estimate is statistically significant.

In TPT measurements, all MA compare patients with TMD and chronic comorbidities with subjects with TMD only. All cPT data were increased in samples with associated comorbidities, possibly indicating more CS, but no point measures were statistically significant. The same trend is repeated in hPT measurements, with point values this time decreased in subjects with associated comorbidities and it had a borderline statistical significance with a p < 0.05 and an estimated SMD of -1.81 [CI 95%: -3.63 to 0.02; I2: 61%] only in the remote region of the foream.

We were unable to include one study53 in the meta-analysis. Sato et al.53 compared TMD and TTH to healthy subjects, and found that temporal summation was not induced in either group when assessed in right cheek and right arm (see Table 2).

3.3.2 Knee osteoarthritis

Campbell at al.54 reported a significant difference on the CS measure (QST) between KOA patients with insomnia, KOA patients, patients with insomnia and healthy subjects, being the first group the most pain sensitive (p = 0.01): they were significantly more sensitive when compared to healthy controls (p = 0.002) and marginally when compared with patients with insomnia (p = 0.06). In individual laboratory tests, PPT at the index knee appeared different between groups, with the KOA and insomnia group being most sensitive (see Table 2).

Moreover, Pereira Silva Moreira at al.51 found a statistically significant difference in the mean values of the PPT between healthy subjects compared to KOA patients regardless of unilateral or bilateral presentation of condition, while they found no difference between patients with unilateral KOA and bilateral KOA in the same measures. Patients with KOA had lower PPT in the dermatomes, the myotomes, and the sclerotomes evaluated except that in the sclerotomes of the supraspinous ligaments (see Table 2).

Finally, Neville et al.45 evaluated patients with KOA and FMS. Their results report that in females, the presence of FMS correlated with all static pain threshold measures (trapezius and tibialis anterior) of pressure pain sensitivity (all p ≤ 0.021) except thumbnail PPT. On the other hand, none of the QST outcomes correlated with the presence of FMS in males (all p > 0.05). CPM was not related to FMS in either sex (see Table 2).

3.3.3 Migraine

Peres et al.52 reported that migraine patients with FMS had significantly higher CSF glutamate levels than subjects with migraine but without FMS (see Table 2). Both these groups had higher levels of CSF glutamate than healthy controls (see Table 2).

Giamberardino et al.50 compared chronic migraine and FMS, episodic migraine and FMS, FMS, chronic migraine, and episodic migraine patients in the measure of PPT and EPT. They found a trend for lower pain threshold in all sites evaluated among groups for all parameters in both measures (see Table 2).

3.3.4 Chronic low back pain

Only Aoyagi et al.41 has compared patients with CLBP associated with FMS, with patients with CLBP only and healthy controls. The paper demonstrated decreased measures of PPT and CPM in all sites evaluated (thumbnail and lower back) with statistical significance (see Table 2).

3.3.5 Rheumatoid arthritis

Kaplan et al.48 demonstrated more signs of CS in a subgroup of subjects with FM and RA, compared to controls with RA only, when evaluated with fMRI (see Table 2).

4. Discussion

4.1 Central sensitization in people with MSK-D and chronic comorbidities

In this SR we tried to estimate whether patients with MSK-D and chronic comorbidities showed more signs of CS, thus demonstrating a nociplastic component in pain and manifest signs and symptoms.

Among the MSK-D, we found only studies with samples with persistent MSK-D and associated comorbidities. Currently, there are no data in the literature on the presence of CS in subjects with a chronic condition who have suffered an acute MSK-D. Therefore, the results of our work are not generalizable to acute MSK-D. The variability in the comorbidities assessed in the included studies is very low, with persistent MSK-D, FMS, insomnia, and migraine as the only comorbidities reported. This does not allow to generalize the results obtained to chronic comorbidities belonging to other systems, such as cardiovascular or metabolic pathologies.

Some papers have already investigated the presence of signs of CS in patients with persistent MSK-D3–6,15,17 and in every single disease included among comorbidities.55–57 For this reason, the presence of signs of CS appears proven in patients with persistent musculoskeletal symptoms or with complex conditions (i.e., associated comorbidities), confirming the hypothesis initially supported by us and confirmed by the results of this SR. The data resulting from this SR must be interpreted with caution because the two studies considering migraine are of moderate methodological quality; only one study per pathology was found for CLBP and RA. There is great heterogeneity from the point of view of the methodological quality and the characteristics of the included samples in the studies examining subjects with KOA. Finally, only 14 studies were included in the SR, and it was possible to produce MA in only one subgroup of patients.

Previous studies have tried to demonstrate the association of CS in maintaining symptoms and achieving worse outcomes after treatment in MSK-D population. The study by Slade et al.58 seems to demonstrate that the presence or absence of signs of CS (PPT) is a consequence of the patient’s painful state, fluctuating in conjunction with the trend of pain levels and does not seem to predict persistent symptom states when initially measured in a cohort of healthy subjects who will then develop temporomandibular pain. The same results appear to be confirmed in a cohort of patients with acute low back pain59 not being the main cause of the development of persistent symptoms when considered alone. It could become the cause of persistent pain states when signs of CS are detected in patients with concomitant psychological and psychosocial factors60,61 and to an initial state of more intense symptoms.62 This statement also finds support after an acute trauma such as whiplash.63,64 Clark et al.65 detect “sensory hypersensitivity and somatization pre-morbidly, or higher sensory at the acute stage of pain are predictors of altered central pain modulation in some musculoskeletal pain conditions”.

Having evaluated data transversely in this SR, no conclusions can be drawn regarding CS, i.e. whether it is caused by the presence of chronic comorbidities in subjects with MSK-D or whether associated comorbidities simply maintain it after the acute state of the injury in which it may be a physiological protective mechanism. Furthermore, there seems to be an interaction between CS and psychosocial factors, but these are only a small part of all the comorbidities that can involve a patient, and we do not know if these interactions are also common to non-psychological pathologies and so of the health state of the patient. Experimental studies have shown that having suffered a previous injury may be sufficient to establish CS processes,66 as well as being exposed to frequent painful stimuli,67 and numerous pathologies present pain among the manifest symptoms. Preliminary data seem to be confirmed that identify a causality of the state of health in the maintenance of CS25 and, as reported by Neville et al.,45 the presence of FMS (and, in general, of chronic comorbidities) may provide a helpful measure of centralized pain processing.

On the other hand, when a subgroup of patients with persistent MSK-D is examined, the presence of signs of CS seems to be present and of marginal importance in giving indications on the course of symptoms, as these will, in any case, only improve to a limited extent.68,69 Probably, this reason justifies the slightest difference that emerges from this SR in signs of CS found between samples with two persistent MSK-D present at the same time and subjects with only one MSK-D.44,51

4.2 Clinical implications

There is more assurance in the data that show that the presence of signs of CS before the implementation of a treatment negatively influences the outcome when measured in terms of pain and disability.70,71 Patients with more signs of CS, also show increased and persistent pain after surgery.72 O’Leary et al.,73 in their SR, confirm that people with signs of CS at baseline, have worse outcomes after treatment (surgical or conservative intervention), although the quality of the evidence is low.

This information is essential in addressing the treatment of these patients, and it is necessary to propose appropriate treatments in order to achieve better results. Due to the presence of signs of CS in subjects with MSK-D and chronic comorbidities, the clinicians must offer treatments to improve psychosocial factors and promote a healthy and active lifestyle, as these are the main factors that contribute to the persistence of symptoms.74 The conservative approach75 and the physical therapy76 were shown to be effective in treating persistent MSK-D, reducing hyperalgesia, and causing brain plastic changes. The non-invasive management should include communication and pain education.77,78 As demonstrated by Bricca et al.,79 when patients have more than one pathology, the primary way to manage their conditions is the active approach based on physical exercise. Rice et al.,80 reported that physical exercise decreases pain sensitivity in healthy controls. This phenomenon is called “exercise-induced hypoalgesia” (EIH). The results are more variable in the chronic pain population (with higher CS signs) and may be impaired in some of this, with pain sensitivity remaining unchanged or increasing in response to exercise.80–82

These results highlight how personalized and multimodal the management of MSK-D patients with high CS signs should be.

4.3 Research implications

Future research should investigate, with high methodological quality, the presence of signs of CS in patients with acute musculoskeletal injuries and chronic comorbidities. The associated disorders should differ from persistent MSK-D, headache, FMS or sleep disorders. By comparing future results with subjects that present only one acute injury and with data coming from this SR, the correlation between health status and CS could be interpreted more clearly. This would increase the knowledge about the cause of the persistence of symptoms in these patients. There is also a lack of high-quality, long-term prospective studies to clarify the topic. Lastly, it would be useful to investigate how the alterations in central pain modulation worsened by chronic comorbidities may affect the treatment outcome and prognosis in patients with MSK-D.

4.4 Limits

This SR has several limits, especially regarding the identification and selection of the studies and the processing of the results.

The inclusion criteria of the studies are stringent and concordant with the clinical question proposed at the beginning of this SR and were established a priori by registering on the PROSPERO database. However, they only take into consideration studies in English or Italian. The papers included have been published from 2000 and were only searched in two databases, however consistent with the researched study design. These decisions may have made the search strategy less sensitive but allowed for studies with only a moderate to low RoB to be selected.

A list of excluded studies was not produced. No validated tools were used to extract the data, but all relevant data relating to the study design, sample and outcomes were established before the start of the SR and blindly extracted. The authors were contacted, if the data relating to the measurement of the SC signs were not present in the studies or were otherwise obtained from the graphs in the papers. Unfortunately, only two authors replied via e-mail, further limiting the chances of MA that have been conducted only in a subgroup of people, aggregating data from no more than four studies for each single MA. The same screening tool used by Joanna Briggs Institute for cross-sectional designs was applied in other works like this one,83 as it is the leading study design for this type of investigation and because the data have been processed transversely.

All research steps, selection, and evaluation of the studies, were done by two blind reviewers, with the help of two experts in the field of the main topic of the SR. The exact process was followed in the data processing part, making this report in line with the best indications for SR.

Conclusions

In conclusion, according to the newest published studies, patients with MSK-D and chronic comorbidities show increased signs of CS and decreased pain threshold compared to healthy controls. When comparing patients with MSK-D and comorbidities with only MSK-D, if the associated pathology is FMS, headache or sleep disorders, the first group seems to show more significant hyperalgesia to painful stimuli. Patients with persistent MSK-D present signs of CS regardless of chronic comorbidities.

Associated comorbidities could be an important factor in maintaining states of CS and contribute to the persistence of musculoskeletal symptoms.

Therefore, contemporary presence of chronic comorbidities can be used as a sign of CS in patients with MSK-D and identifying patients with a nociplastic component in pain and those with worse outcomes after treatment.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

Research funding

Authors state no funding involved.

Authors’ contributions

MS and DD contributed to the conception and design of the work that led to the manuscript. MS, DD and MC contributed to the drafting the protocol. MS and DD contributed to the materials/analysis tools. MS, DD and MC contributed to the collection, interpretation of data. DF contributed to the analysis of data. MS and DD completed the majority of draft writing. MC and DF provided critical revisions for the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published study. Other information of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

Authors state no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Footnotes

  • mttsgrb{at}virgilio.it

  • dda.dalessandro{at}gmail.com

  • matteo.castaldo{at}poliambulatoriofisiocenter.com

  • danielfeller.ft{at}gmail.com

Abbreviations

MSK-D
musculoskeletal disorders
OA
osteoarthritis
LBP
low back pain
RA
rheumatoid arthritis
CS
central sensitization
IASP
International Association for the Study of Pain
CSI
central sensitization inventory
PPT
the pressure pain thresholds
TS
temporal summation
TMD
temporomandibular disorders
SR
systematic review
PROSPERO
Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews
PRISMA
preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
TTH
tension type headache
CLBP
chronic low back pain
FMS
fibromyalgia
CSS
central sensitivity syndrome
WoS
web of Science
BMI
body mass index
SD
standard deviation
RoB
risk of bias
MA
meta-analysis
KOA
knee osteoarthritis
CNP
chronic neck pain
QST
quantitative sensory testing
TPT
thermal pain threshold
cPT
cold pain threshold
hPT
heat pain threshold
EPT
electrical pain threshold
CPM
conditioned pain modulation
fMRI
functional magnetic resonance imaging
CSF
cerebrospinal fluid
SMD
Standardized Mean Difference
CI
Confidence Interval
EIH
exercise-induced hypoalgesia.

References

  1. 1.↵
    James, S. L. et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 Diseases and Injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 392, 1789–1858 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Vos, T. et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 390, 1211–1259 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Meeus, M. et al. Central sensitization in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic literature review. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 41, 556–567 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    Fingleton, C., Smart, K., Moloney, N., Fullen, B. M. & Doody, C. Pain sensitization in people with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 23, 1043–1056 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    Lluch, E., Torres, R., Nijs, J. & Van Oosterwijck, J. Evidence for central sensitization in patients with osteoarthritis pain: A systematic literature review. Eur. J. Pain (United Kingdom) 18, 1367–1375 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    den Bandt HL, Paulis WD, Beckwée D, Ickmans K, Nijs J, Voogt L. Pain Mechanisms in Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Mechanical Quantitative Sensory Testing Outcomes in People With Nonspecific Low Back Pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019 Oct;49(10):698–715.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    IASP, Taxonomy, http://www.iasp x(web archive link, 14 October 2018) pain.org/Education/Content.aspx?ItemNumber = 1698#Centralsensitization (accessed 14-10-2018).
  8. 8.↵
    Fernández-Pérez, A. M. et al. Muscle trigger points, pressure pain threshold, and cervical range of motion in patients with high level of disability related to acute whiplash injury. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 42, 634–641 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Juhl, G. I., Jensen, T. S., Norholt, S. E. & Svensson, P. Central sensitization phenomena after third molar surgery: A quantitative sensory testing study. Eur. J. Pain 12, 116–127 (2008).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Petersen, K. K., Arendt-Nielsen, L., Simonsen, O., Wilder-Smith, O. & Laursen, M. B. Presurgical assessment of temporal summation of pain predicts the development of chronic postoperative pain 12 months after total knee replacement. Pain 156, 55–61 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Ramiro-González, M. D. et al. Deep Tissue Hypersensitivity to Pressure Pain in Individuals with Unilateral Acute Inversion Ankle Sprain. Pain Med. 13, 361–367 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Plinsinga, M. L., Brink, M. S., Vicenzino, B. & Van Wilgen, C. P. Evidence of nervous system sensitization in commonly presenting and persistent painful tendinopathies: A systematic review. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 45, 864–875 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.
    Van Oosterwijck, J., Nijs, J., Meeus, M. & Paul, L. Evidence for central sensitization in chronic whiplash: A systematic literature review. Eur. J. Pain (United Kingdom) 17, 299–312 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.
    Rathleff, M. S., Petersen, K. K., Arendt-Nielsen, L., Thorborg, K. & Graven-Nielsen, T. Impaired conditioned pain modulation in young female adults with long-standing patellofemoral pain: A single blinded cross-sectional study. Pain Med. (United States) 17, 980–988 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Sanchis, M. N., Lluch, E., Nijs, J., Struyf, F. & Kangasperko, M. The role of central sensitization in shoulder pain: A systematic literature review. Semin.Arthritis Rheum. 44, 710–716 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.
    Noten, S. et al. Central Pain Processing in Patients with Shoulder Pain: A Review of the Literature. Pain Pract. 17, 267–280 (2017).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    La Touche R, Paris-Alemany A, Hidalgo-Pérez A, López-de-Uralde-Villanueva I, Angulo-Diaz-Parreño S & Muñoz-García D. Evidence for Central Sensitization in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies. Pain Pract. 18, 388–409 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Curatolo, M. & Arendt-Nielsen, L. Central Hypersensitivity in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 26, 175–184 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Fernandez-De-Las-Penas, C. et al. Widespread pressure pain hypersensitivity in patients with multiple sclerosis with and without pain as sign of central sensitization. Clin. J. Pain 31, 66–72 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Girbés, E. L. et al. Expanded distribution of pain as a sign of central sensitization in individuals with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Phys. Ther. 96, 1196–1207 (2016).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    den Boer, C. et al. Central sensitization in chronic pain and medically unexplained symptom research: A systematic review of definitions, operationalizations and measurement instruments. J. Psychosom. Res. 117, 32–40 (2019).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    den Boer, C., Terluin, B., van der Wouden, J. C., Blankenstein, A. H. & van der Horst, H. E. Tests for central sensitization in general practice: a Delphi study. BMC Fam. Pract. 22, 1–12 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    Zhao, S. S. et al. Prevalence and impact of comorbidities in axial spondyloarthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol. (United Kingdom) 59, IV47–IV57 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Guh, D. P. et al. The incidence of co-morbidities related to obesity and overweight: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 9, 1–20 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Castaldo, M., Catena, A., Fernández-De-Las-Peñas, C. & Arendt-Nielsen, L. Widespread Pressure Pain Hypersensitivity, Health History, and Trigger Points in Patients with Chronic Neck Pain: A Preliminary Study. Pain Med. (United States) 20, 2516–2527 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Costa, Y. M., Conti, P. C. R., de Faria, F. A. C. & Bonjardim, L. R. Temporomandibular disorders and painful comorbidities: clinical association and underlying mechanisms. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 123, 288–297 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Page, M. J. et al. The prisma 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Med. Flum. 57, 444–465 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Luedtke, K., Starke, W. & May, A. Musculoskeletal dysfunction in migraine patients. Cephalalgia 38, 865–875 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Wanderley, D., Moura Filho, A. G., Costa Neto, J. J. S., Siqueira, G. R. & de Oliveira, D. A. Analysis of dimensions, activation and median frequency of cervical flexor muscles in young women with migraine or tension-type headache. Brazilian J. Phys. Ther. 19, 243–250 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Do, T. P., Heldarskard, G. F., Kolding, L. T., Hvedstrup, J. & Schytz, H. W. Myofascial trigger points in migraine and tensional headeache.pdf. J. Headache Pain 19, 84–101 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    Chaibi, A., Tuchin, P. J. & Russell, M. B. Manual therapies for migraine: A systematic review. J. Headache Pain 12, 127–133 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Rist, P. M. et al. disability : A systematic review and meta-analysis. 59, 532–542 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Kindler, L. L., Bennett, R. M. & Jones, K. D. Pain Manag Nurs. 12, 15–24 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.
    Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. 152, S2–S15 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    Neblett R, Cohen H, Choi Y, Hartzell MM, Williams M, Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI): establishing clinically significant values for identifying central sensitivity syndromes in an outpatient chronic pain sample. J Pain. 14, 438–445 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    Association AP: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed), American Psychiatric Publishing, Arlington, VA, 2013.
  37. 37.↵
    Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. & Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5, 1–10 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Aromataris E,
    2. Munn Z
    Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, Currie M, Qureshi R, Mattis P, Lisy K, Mu P-F. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk . In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org.
  39. 39.↵
    Higgins, J.P.T.T.J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., Welch, V.A., 2019. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.0 (Updated July 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  40. 40.↵
    Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998.
  41. 41.↵
    Aoyagi, K. et al. A Subgroup of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients with Central Sensitization. Clin. J. Pain 35, 869–879 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Bevilaqua-Grossi, D. et al. Temporomandibular disorders and cutaneous allodynia are associated in individuals with migraine. Cephalalgia 30, 425–432 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.↵
    Garrigós-Pedrón, M., La Touche, R., Navarro-Desentre, P., Gracia-Naya, M. & Segura-Ortí, E. Widespread mechanical pain hypersensitivity in patients with chronic migraine and temporomandibular disorders: relationship and correlation between psychological and sensorimotor variables. Acta Odontol. Scand. 77, 224–231 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Muñoz-García, D., López-de-Uralde-Villanueva, I., Beltran-Alacreu, H., La Touche, R. & Fernández-Carnero, J. Patients with concomitant chronic neck pain and myofascial pain in masticatory muscles have more widespread pain and distal hyperalgesia than patients with only chronic neck pain. Pain Med. (United States) 18, 526–537 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Neville, S. J. et al. Association between the 2011 Fibromyalgia Survey Criteria and Multisite Pain Sensitivity in Knee Osteoarthritis. Clin. J. Pain 34, 909–917 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Smith, M. T. et al. Sleep disorders and their association with laboratory pain sensitivity in temporomandibular joint disorder. Sleep 32, 779–790 (2009).
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    Chaves, T. C. et al. Concomitant migraine and temporomandibular disorders are associated with higher heat pain hyperalgesia and cephalic cutaneous allodynia. Clin. J. Pain 32, 882–888 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Kaplan, C. M. et al. Association of Inflammation With Pronociceptive Brain Connections in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients With Concomitant Fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheumatol. 72, 41–46 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Janal, M. N. et al. Thermal temporal summation and decay of after-sensations in temporomandibular myofascial pain patients with and without comorbid fibromyalgia. J. Pain Res. 9, 641–652 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    Giamberardino, M. A. et al. Impact of migraine on fibromyalgia symptoms. J. Headache Pain 17, (2016).
  51. 51.↵
    Moreira, V. M. P. S., Barboza, S. D., Oliveira, J. B., Pereira, J. M. & Dionisio, V. C. Secondary hyperalgesia occurs regardless of unilateral or bilateral knee osteoarthritis involvement in individuals with mild or moderate level. Rev. Bras. Reumatol. 57, 37–44 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    Peres, M. F. P. et al. Cerebrospinal fluid glutamate levels in chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 24, 735–739 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.↵
    Sato H, Saisu H, Muraoka W, Nakagawa T, Svensson P, Wajima K. Lack of temporal summation but distinct aftersensations to thermal stimulation in patients with combined tension-type headache and myofascial temporomandibular disorder. J. Orofac. Pain 26, 288–295 (2012).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Campbell, C. M. et al. Sleep, Pain Catastrophizing, and Central Sensitization in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients with and Without Insomnia. Arthritis Care Res. 67, 1387–1396 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Andreou, A. P. & Edvinsson, L. Mechanisms of migraine as a chronic evolutive condition. J. Headache Pain 20, (2019).
  56. 56.
    Caamaño-Barrios, L. H. et al. Widespread Pressure Pain Sensitivity over Nerve Trunk Areas in Women with Frequent Episodic Tension-Type Headache as a Sign of Central Sensitization. Pain Med. (United States) 21, 1408–1414 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Cagnie, B. et al. Central sensitization in fibromyalgia? A systematic review on structural and functional brain MRI. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 44, 68–75 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    Slade, G. D. et al. Pressure pain thresholds fluctuate with, but do not usefully predict, the clinical course of painful temporomandibular disorder. Pain 155, 2134–2143 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    Müller, M. et al. Predicting transition from acute to chronic low back pain with quantitative sensory tests—A prospective cohort study in the primary care setting. Eur. J. Pain (United Kingdom) 23, 894–907 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Coombes, B. K., Bisset, L. & Vicenzino, B. Cold hyperalgesia associated with poorer prognosis in lateral epicondylalgia: A 1-year prognostic study of physical and PS. Clin. J. Pain 31, 30–35 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    Klyne, D. M., Moseley, G. L., Sterling, M., Barbe, M. F. & Hodges, P. W. Are Signs of Central Sensitization in Acute Low Back Pain a Precursor to Poor Outcome? J. Pain 20, 994–1009 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    Sterling, M., Jull, G., Vicenzino, B. & Kenardy, J. Sensory hypersensitivity occurs soon after whiplash injury and is associated with poor recovery. Pain 104, 509–517 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  63. 63.↵
    Sterling, M., Jull, G., Vicenzino, B., Kenardy, J. & Darnell, R. Physical and psychological factors predict outcome following whiplash injury. Pain 114, 141–148 (2005).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  64. 64.↵
    Sterling, M., Jull, G. & Kenardy, J. Physical and psychological factors maintain long-term predictive capacity post-whiplash injury. Pain 122, 102–108 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  65. 65.↵
    Clark, J., Nijs, J., Yeowell, G. & Goodwin, P. C. What are the predictors of altered central pain modulation in chronic musculoskeletal pain populations? A systematic review. Pain Physician 20, 487–500 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    Palsson, T. S., Boudreau, S. A., Krebs, H. J. & Graven-Nielsen, T. Experimental Referred Pain Extends Toward Previously Injured Location: An Explorative Study. J. Pain 19, 1189–1200 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Rubin, T. K., Henderson, L. A. & MacEfield, V. G. Changes in the spatiotemporal expression of local and referred pain following repeated intramuscular injections of hypertonic saline: A longitudinal study. J. Pain 11, 737–745 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    Ansuategui Echeita, J., Schiphorst Preuper, H. R., Dekker, R. & Reneman, M. F. Central sensitization and functioning in patients with chronic low back pain: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 1, 1–12 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Mlekusch, S. et al. Do central hypersensitivity and altered pain modulation predict the course of chronic low back and neck pain? Clin. J. Pain 29, 673–680 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    Wright, A. et al. Abnormal Quantitative Sensory Testing is Associated With Persistent Pain One Year After TKA. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 473, 246–254 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    Jull, G., Sterling, M., Kenardy, J. & Beller, E. Does the presence of sensory hypersensitivity influence outcomes of physical rehabilitation for chronic whiplash? - A preliminary RCT. Pain 129, 28–34 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. 72.↵
    Sng, B. L. et al. Incidence and association factors for the development of chronic post-hysterectomy pain at 4- and 6-month follow-up: A prospective cohort study. J. Pain Res. 11, 629–636 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    O’Leary, H., Smart, K. M., Moloney, N. A. & Doody, C. M. Nervous System Sensitization as a Predictor of Outcome in the Treatment of Peripheral Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review. Pain Pract. 17, 249–266 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.↵
    Othman, R. et al. Relationships Between Psychological, Sleep, and Physical Activity Measures and Somatosensory Function in People With Peripheral Joint Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pain Pract. 21, 226–261 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.↵
    Kregel, J. et al. Does conservative treatment change the brain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review. Pain Physician 20, 139–154 (2017).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    Arribas-Romano, A., Fernández-Carnero, J., Molina-Rueda, F., Angulo-Diaz-Parreño, S. & Navarro-Santana, M. J. Efficacy of physical therapy on nociceptive pain processing alterations in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Med. (United States) 21, 2502–2517 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.↵
    Esculier, J. F. et al. Is combining gait retraining or an exercise programme with education better than education alone in treating runners with patellofemoral pain? A randomised clinical trial. Br. J. Sports Med. 52, 659–666 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.↵
    Malfliet, A. et al. Patients With Chronic Spinal Pain Benefit From Pain Neuroscience Education Regardless the Self-Reported Signs of Central Sensitization: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial. PM R 10, 1330-1343.e1 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Bricca, A. et al. Benefits and harms of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Ageing Res. Rev. 63, (2020).
  80. 80.↵
    Rice, D. et al. Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia in Pain-Free and Chronic Pain Populations: State of the Art and Future Directions. J. Pain 20, 1249–1266 (2019).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. 81.
    Belavy, D. L. et al. Pain sensitivity is reduced by exercise training: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 120, 100–108 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    Naugle, K. M., Fillingim, R. B. & Riley, J. L. A meta-analytic review of the hypoalgesic effects of exercise. J. Pain 13, 1139–1150 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  83. 83.↵
    Maselli, F. et al. Prevalence and incidence of low back pain among runners: A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 21, 1–25 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Posted February 03, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
SIGNS OF CENTRAL SENSITIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS AND CHRONIC COMORBIDITIES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSES OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES
Mattia Sgarbi, Davide D’Alessandro, Matteo Castaldo, Daniel Feller
medRxiv 2023.02.02.23285365; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.02.23285365
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area