1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Spatial Distribution of Temporalis Pressure Pain Sensitivity in Men with Episodic Cluster Headache

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          (1) Background: Spatial changes in pressure sensitivity have been described in migraine and tension-type headaches. Our aim was to determine differences in the spatial distribution of pressure pain sensitivity of the temporalis muscle between cluster headache (CH) patients and headache-free controls; (2) Methods: Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were determined over nine points covering the temporalis muscle in 40 men with episodic CH and 40 matched headache-free controls in a blinded fashion. Topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps were constructed based on interpolation of the PPTs. Patients were evaluated in a pain-free period (remission phase), at least 3 months from the last attack and without medication; (3) Results: The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) found significant difference between points (F = 21.887; P < 0.001) and groups (F = 24.416; P = 0.602), but not between sides (F = 0.440; P = 0.508). No effect of depression (F = 0.014; P = 0.907) or anxiety (F = 0.696; F = 0.407) was observed. A post-hoc analysis revealed: 1) lower PPTs at all points in patients than in controls, 2) an anterior-to-posterior gradient in patients but not in controls, with lower PPTs located in the anterior column. Large between-groups effects were shown in all points (standardized mean difference, SMD > 0.8); (4) Conclusions: Bilateral pressure pain hypersensitivity to pressure pain in the temporalis muscle and an anterior-to-posterior gradient to pressure pain was observed in men with episodic CH.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interrater reliability of algometry in measuring pressure pain thresholds in healthy humans, using multiple raters.

          To evaluate interrater reliability using 5 newly trained observers in the assessment of pressure pain threshold (PPT) using a fixed-angle algometer. The study design comprised 2 phases. Phase 1: 5 undergraduate physical therapists were trained in algometry at a predefined angle, at a rate of 5 Newtons (N)/s, to the first dorsal interosseous muscle. Each observer then underwent a competency test of the application speed. The aim was to achieve repeated applications at 5 N/s without visual feedback from the algometer. Phase 2: the 5 observers measured PPT of 13 healthy volunteers, at the first dorsal interosseous muscle. The sequence of observer measurements for each participant was randomized. Mean PPT values for each observer were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), and standard error of measurement, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). No significant differences between observers' mean values were found (P=0.094), suggesting no bias. The ICC was 0.91 (95% CI 0.82, 0.97). The standard error of measurement value was 6.27 N/cm (95% CI 5.35, 7.59). Differences in PPT measurements of more than 17.39 N/cm (1.77 kg/cm) are likely to exceed the magnitude of measurement error, and could be used to indicate true change. This margin of error is, however, somewhat larger than a previously proposed minimum clinically important difference in PPT of 14.71 N/cm (1.5 kg/cm). This study provides new evidence that trained observers can apply an algometer at a consistent rate and provide highly reliable measures of PPT in healthy humans, when PPT is calculated as the mean of 3 trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reliability, standard error, and minimum detectable change of clinical pressure pain threshold testing in people with and without acute neck pain.

            Clinical measurement. To evaluate the intrarater, interrater, and test-retest reliability of an accessible digital algometer, and to determine the minimum detectable change in normal healthy individuals and a clinical population with neck pain. Pressure pain threshold testing may be a valuable assessment and prognostic indicator for people with neck pain. To date, most of this research has been completed using algometers that are too resource intensive for routine clinical use. Novice raters (physiotherapy students or clinical physiotherapists) were trained to perform algometry testing over 2 clinically relevant sites: the angle of the upper trapezius and the belly of the tibialis anterior. A convenience sample of normal healthy individuals and a clinical sample of people with neck pain were tested by 2 different raters (all participants) and on 2 different days (healthy participants only). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement, and minimum detectable change were calculated. A total of 60 healthy volunteers and 40 people with neck pain were recruited. Intrarater reliability was almost perfect (ICC = 0.94-0.97), interrater reliability was substantial to near perfect (ICC = 0.79-0.90), and test-retest reliability was substantial (ICC = 0.76-0.79). Smaller change was detectable in the trapezius compared to the tibialis anterior. This study provides evidence that novice raters can perform digital algometry with adequate reliability for research and clinical use in people with and without neck pain.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The incidence and prevalence of cluster headache: a meta-analysis of population-based studies.

              Cluster headache is a trigemino-autonomic cephalgia with a low prevalence. Several population-based studies on its prevalence and incidence have been performed, but with different methodology resulting in different figures. We analysed all available population-based epidemiological studies on cluster headache and compared the data in a meta-analysis. The pooled data showed a lifetime prevalence of 124 per 100,000 [confidence interval (CI) 101, 151] and a 1-year prevalence of 53 per 100,000 (CI 26, 95). The overall sex ratio was 4.3 (male to female), it was higher in chronic cluster headache (15.0) compared with episodic cluster headache (3.8). The ratio of episodic vs. chronic cluster headache was 6.0. Our analysis revealed a relatively stable lifetime prevalence, which suggests that about one in 1000 people suffers from cluster headache, the prevalence being independent of the region of the population study. The sex ratio (male to female) is higher than published in several patient-based epidemiological studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                01 November 2019
                November 2019
                : 16
                : 21
                : 4239
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain
                [2 ]Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), Center for Sensory-Motor Interaction (SMI), Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark
                [3 ]Department of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, 28922 Madrid, Spain; mlcuadrado@ 123456med.ucm.es
                [4 ]Department of Neurology, Hospital Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Madrid, Spain; ordas.carlos@ 123456gmail.com
                [5 ]Sport Sciences-Performance and Technology, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark; pm@ 123456hst.aau.dk
                [6 ]Headache Unit, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, 47003 Valladolid, Spain; gueneurol@ 123456gmail.com
                [7 ]Institute for Biomedical Research of Salamanca (IBSAL), 37007 Salamanca, Spain
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8246-3743
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2164-234X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7493-6002
                Article
                ijerph-16-04239
                10.3390/ijerph16214239
                6861990
                31683756
                b5bdb3dd-4e3b-47b5-8d38-035d3fdd3f8d
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 09 October 2019
                : 30 October 2019
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                cluster headache,pressure pain,topographical maps,sensitization
                Public health
                cluster headache, pressure pain, topographical maps, sensitization

                Comments

                Comment on this article