Back

The variability of nociplastic and central pain definition in literature: a scoping review

Margelli, M.; Bonas, E.; Obinu, G.; De Marco, G.; Baroni, A.; Sartorio, C.

2022-09-25 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2022.09.23.22279813 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCurrently, the concept of pain is widely discussed in the scientific community, particularly chronic musculoskeletal pain. One important classification concerns the mechanisms of pain generation, according to which pain is divided into nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, nociplastic pain (NP), and central sensitization (CS). Often the terms nociplastic pain and central sensitization are used incorrectly, as synonyms, or improperly; this can make data transmission complicated. The aim of this review will be to provide a clearer overview of the concept of pain in the scientific literature, describe the variability on the use of the terms nociplastic pain and central sensitization, and describe the mechanisms in relation to musculoskeletal pain syndromes. Inclusion CriteriaEvery study describing the mechanisms of nociplastic pain or central sensitization in a population of adults (> 18 years old), with acute or chronic musculoskeletal pain, in one or more anatomic regions. This scoping review will consider studies conducted in any context. Articles in English or Italian will be considered. MethodsThe proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology (JBI) for scoping reviews. The search will be carried out on 5 databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Embase, and PEDro. Selection and data extraction will be conducted by two blind independent researchers and inconsistencies will be resolved by a third reviewer. The results will be presented in a schematic, tabular and descriptive format that will line up with the objectives and scope of the review. ConclusionsThis will be the first scoping review to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic. The results will add meaningful information for clinicians. Furthermore, any knowledge gaps of the topic will be identified. The results of this research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at relevant (inter)national scientific events.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.