Test-retest reliability of Bayesian estimations of the effects of stimulation, prior information and individual traits on pain perception.
Journal
European journal of pain (London, England)
ISSN: 1532-2149
Titre abrégé: Eur J Pain
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Nov 2023
10 Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
29
09
2023
received:
10
01
2023
accepted:
09
10
2023
medline:
10
11
2023
pubmed:
10
11
2023
entrez:
10
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
There is inter-individual variability in the influence of different components (e.g. nociception and expectations) on pain perception. Identifying the individual effect of these components could serve for patient stratification, but only if these influences are stable in time. In this study, 30 healthy participants underwent a cognitive pain paradigm in which they rated pain after viewing a probabilistic cue informing of forthcoming pain intensity and then receiving electrical stimulation. The trial information was then used in a Bayesian probability model to compute the relative weight each participant put on stimulation, cue, cue uncertainty and trait-like bias. The same procedure was repeated 2 weeks later. Relative and absolute test-retest reliability of all measures was assessed. Intraclass correlation results showed good reliability for the effect of the stimulation (0.83), the effect of the cue (0.75) and the trait-like bias (0.75 and 0.75), and a moderate reliability for the effect of the cue uncertainty (0.55). Absolute reliability measures also supported the temporal stability of the results and indicated that a change in parameters corresponding to a difference in pain ratings ranging between 0.47 and 1.45 (depending on the parameters) would be needed to consider differences in outcomes significant. The comparison of these measures with the closest clinical data we possess supports the reliability of our results. These findings support the hypothesis that inter-individual differences in the weight placed on different pain factors are stable in time and could therefore be a possible target for patient stratification. Our results demonstrate the temporal stability of the weight healthy individuals place on the different factors leading to the pain response. These findings give validity to the idea of using Bayesian estimations of the influence of different factors on pain as a way to stratify patients for treatment personalization.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is inter-individual variability in the influence of different components (e.g. nociception and expectations) on pain perception. Identifying the individual effect of these components could serve for patient stratification, but only if these influences are stable in time.
METHODS
METHODS
In this study, 30 healthy participants underwent a cognitive pain paradigm in which they rated pain after viewing a probabilistic cue informing of forthcoming pain intensity and then receiving electrical stimulation. The trial information was then used in a Bayesian probability model to compute the relative weight each participant put on stimulation, cue, cue uncertainty and trait-like bias. The same procedure was repeated 2 weeks later. Relative and absolute test-retest reliability of all measures was assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Intraclass correlation results showed good reliability for the effect of the stimulation (0.83), the effect of the cue (0.75) and the trait-like bias (0.75 and 0.75), and a moderate reliability for the effect of the cue uncertainty (0.55). Absolute reliability measures also supported the temporal stability of the results and indicated that a change in parameters corresponding to a difference in pain ratings ranging between 0.47 and 1.45 (depending on the parameters) would be needed to consider differences in outcomes significant. The comparison of these measures with the closest clinical data we possess supports the reliability of our results.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These findings support the hypothesis that inter-individual differences in the weight placed on different pain factors are stable in time and could therefore be a possible target for patient stratification.
SIGNIFICANCE
CONCLUSIONS
Our results demonstrate the temporal stability of the weight healthy individuals place on the different factors leading to the pain response. These findings give validity to the idea of using Bayesian estimations of the influence of different factors on pain as a way to stratify patients for treatment personalization.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.
Références
Abma, I. L., Rovers, M., & van der Wees, P. J. (2016). Appraising convergent validity of patient-reported outcome measures in systematic reviews: Constructing hypotheses and interpreting outcomes. BMC Research Notes, 9, 226.
Alghadir, A. H., Anwer, S., Iqbal, A., & Iqbal, Z. A. (2018). Test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain. Journal of Pain Research, 11, 851-856.
Bahreini, M., Safaie, A., Mirfazaelian, H., & Jalili, M. (2020). How much change in pain score does really matter to patients? The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 38, 1641-1646.
Blanchard, T., Lombrozo, T., & Nichols, S. (2018). Bayesian Occam's razor is a razor of the people. Cognitive Science, 42, 1345-1359.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Applying the right statistics: Analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 22, 85-93.
Braun, M., Bello, C., Riva, T., Hönemann, C., Doll, D., Urman, R. D., & Luedi, M. M. (2021). Quantitative sensory testing to predict postoperative pain. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 25, 3.
Cherkin, D. C., Sherman, K. J., Balderson, B. H., Cook, A. J., Anderson, M. L., Hawkes, R. J., Hansen, K. E., & Turner, J. A. (2016). Effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction vs cognitive behavioral therapy or usual care on Back pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic low Back pain. Jama, 315, 1240-1249.
Daunizeau, J., den Ouden, H. E. M., Pessiglione, M., Kiebel, S. J., Friston, K. J., & Stephan, K. E. (2010). Observing the observer (II): Deciding when to decide. PLoS One, 5, e15555.
Felix, E. R., & Widerström-Noga, E. G. (2009). Reliability and validity of quantitative sensory testing in persons with spinal cord injury and neuropathic pain. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 46, 69-84.
Georgopoulos, V., Akin-Akinyosoye, K., Zhang, W., McWilliams, D. F., Hendrick, P., & Walsh, D. A. (2019). Quantitative sensory testing and predicting outcomes for musculoskeletal pain, disability, and negative affect: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain, 160, 1920-1932.
Graham-Engeland, J. E., Zawadzki, M. J., Slavish, D. C., & Smyth, J. M. (2016). Depressive symptoms and momentary mood predict momentary pain among rheumatoid arthritis patients. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50, 12-23.
Hoskin, R., Berzuini, C., Acosta-Kane, D., El-Deredy, W., Guo, H., & Talmi, D. (2019). Sensitivity to pain expectations: A Bayesian model of individual differences. Cognition, 182, 127-139.
Jurth, C., Rehberg, B., & Von Dincklage, F. (2014). Reliability of subjective pain ratings and nociceptive flexion reflex responses as measures of conditioned pain modulation. Pain Research & Management, 19, 93-96.
Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends in Neurosciences, 27, 712-719.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155-163.
Kovacs, F. M., Abraira, V., Royuela, A., Corcoll, J., Alegre, L., Tomás, M., Mir, M. A., Cano, A., Muriel, A., Zamora, J., del Real, M. T. G., Gestoso, M., Mufraggi, N., & The Spanish Back Pain Research Network. (2008). Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 9, 43.
Letzen, J. E., & Robinson, M. E. (2017). Negative mood influences default mode network functional connectivity in patients with chronic low back pain: Implications for functional neuroimaging biomarkers. Pain, 158, 48-57.
Lim, M., O'Grady, C., Cane, D., Goyal, A., Lynch, M., Beyea, S., & Hashmi, J. A. (2020). Threat prediction from schemas as a source of bias in pain perception. The Journal of Neuroscience, 40, 1538-1548.
Lin, W., Zhou, F., Yu, L., Wan, L., Yuan, H., Wang, K., & Svensson, P. (2020). Quantitative sensory testing of periauricular skin in healthy adults. Scientific Reports, 10, 1-11.
Moore, A., Derry, S., Eccleston, C., & Kalso, E. (2013). Expect analgesic failure; pursue analgesic success. BMJ Online, 346, 7-9.
Morley, S. (2011). Efficacy and effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic pain: Progress and some challenges. Pain, 152, S99-S106.
Nickel, M. M., Tiemann, L., Hohn, V. D., May, E. S., Gil Ávila, C., Eippert, F., & Ploner, M. (2022). Temporal-spectral signaling of sensory information and expectations in the cerebral processing of pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119, e2116616119.
Nothnagel, H., Puta, C., Lehmann, T., Baumbach, P., Menard, M. B., Gabriel, B., Gabriel, H. H. W., Weiss, T., & Musial, F. (2017). How stable are quantitative sensory testing measurements over time? Report on 10-week reliability and agreement of results in healthy volunteers. Journal of Pain Research, 10, 2067-2078.
Palminteri, S., Wyart, V., & Koechlin, E. (2017). The importance of falsification in computational cognitive modeling. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 425-433.
Petzschner, F. H., Glasauer, S., & Stephan, K. E. (2015). A Bayesian perspective on magnitude estimation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 285-293.
Pulvers, K., & Hood, A. (2013). The role of positive traits and pain catastrophizing in pain perception. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 17, 330.
Radford, N. (2011). MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics. In Handbook of Markov chain Monte Carlo. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Salaffi, F., Stancati, A., Silvestri, C. A., Ciapetti, A., & Grassi, W. (2004). Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. European Journal of Pain, 8, 283-291.
Stan Development Team. (2023). RStan the R interface to Stan. R package version 2.32.3. https://mc-stan.org/
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press.
Sturgeon, J. (2014). Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 7, 115.
Van den Bergh, O., Witthöft, M., Petersen, S., & Brown, R. J. (2017). Symptoms and the body: Taking the inferential leap. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 74, 185-203.
Vaz, S., Falkmer, T., Passmore, A. E., Parsons, R., & Andreou, P. (2013). The case for using the repeatability coefficient when calculating test-retest reliability. PLoS One, 8, e73990.
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27, 1413-1432.
Williams, A. C. D. C., & Craig, K. D. (2016). Updating the definition of pain. Pain, 157, 2420-2423.
Wylde, V., Palmer, S., Learmonth, I. D., & Dieppe, P. (2011). Test-retest reliability of quantitative sensory testing in knee osteoarthritis and healthy participants. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 19, 655-658.