Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Pain mechanisms in complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative sensory testing outcomes

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 18, Article number: 2 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic condition following inciting events such as fractures or surgeries with sensorimotor and autonomic manifestations and poor prognosis. This review aimed to provide conclusive evidence about the sensory phenotype of CRPS based on quantitative sensory testing (QST) to understand the underlying pain mechanisms and guide treatment strategies.

Databases

Eight databases were searched based on a previously published protocol. Forty studies comparing QST outcomes (thermal, mechanical, vibration, and electric detection thresholds, thermal, mechanical, pressure, and electric pain thresholds, wind-up ratio, mechanical pain sensitivity, allodynia, flare area, area after pinprick hyperalgesia, pleasantness after C-tactile stimulation, and pain ratings) in chronic CRPS (adults and children) versus healthy controls were included.

Results

From 37 studies (14 of low quality, 22 of fair quality, and 1 of good quality), adults with CRPS showed: (i) significant loss of thermal, mechanical, and vibration sensations, significant gain of thermal and mechanical pain thresholds, significant elevation of pain ratings, and no difference in wind-up ratio; (ii) significant reduction of pleasantness levels and increased area of pinprick hyperalgesia, in the affected limb. From three fair-quality studies, adolescents and children with CRPS showed loss of cold detection with cold hyperalgesia in the affected limb. There was moderate to substantial overall heterogeneity.

Conclusion

Diffuse thermal and mechanical hypoesthesia with primary and secondary hyperalgesia, enhanced pain facilitation evidenced by increased area of pinprick hyperalgesia, and elevated pain ratings are dominant in adults with CRPS. Adolescents and children with CRPS showed less severe sensory abnormalities.

Introduction

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic debilitating pain condition of the limbs following trauma or surgery with an incidence rate of 26.2 per 100,000 person-years [1, 2]. CRPS occurs commonly in elderly people, in females more than males, and the upper extremity more than in the lower extremity [2]. Two main types of CRPS were identified: CRPS types 1 and 2 [3]. CRPS type 1 or reflex sympathetic dystrophy is characterized by sensory, motor, and autonomic abnormalities without electrophysiological evidence of nerve lesion. On contrary, CRPS type 2 is characterized by identifiable nerve lesions that can be detected through electrophysiological findings and it is considered typical neuropathic pain [1].

CRPS is, usually, associated with poor outcomes, long-term complaints, and comorbidities (e.g., depression and photophobia) [4,5,6]; however, the pain mechanisms involved in CRPS are not fully understood. [7]. Neurogenic inflammation, peripheral sensitization (PS), central sensitization (CS), small nerve fiber pathology, autonomic dysregulation, and psychological states represent the shared model of the underlying pathophysiology of CRPS [8,9,10,11,12]. Neurogenic inflammation is caused by neuropeptides released from the primary afferents resulting in axon reflex vasodilatation and protein extravasation [8]. PS is defined as enhanced responsiveness and decreased threshold of nociceptive neurons within the afflicted receptive field, and it was demonstrated in CRPS by the presence of primary hyperalgesia in the affected regions [13]. Signs of PS in CRPS can include gain of thermal and mechanical pain thresholds at the affected sites [14,15,16].

In CRPS, secondary hyperalgesia in distant locations away from the affected area was found to be indicative of CS, which is an increased response of nociceptive neurons in the central nervous system to normal or sub-threshold afferent input [17]. Signs of CS in CRPS can include widespread gain of thermal and mechanical pain thresholds, enhanced pain facilitation as evidenced by elevated pain ratings, and/or impaired pain inhibition [14, 18].

It has been demonstrated that CRPS patients have a bilateral reduction in intraepidermal small nerve fiber density, and these fibers are responsible for nociception and perceiving temperature [19]. Conceivably, reduction of the small nerve fiber density would be responsible for altered perception of these sensations. Autonomic dysregulation could result in enhanced pain perception as evidenced by increased expression of α1-adrenergic receptors [11]. Also, post-traumatic stress disorder and pain catastrophizing seem to increase pain response in CRPS [12].

A valid and standardized tool to assess pain mechanisms involved in different chronic pain conditions (inflammatory, neuropathic, and mixed chronic pain conditions) is quantitative sensory testing (QST) [20]. As far as we are aware, this is the first review to consolidate and evaluate the QST data of affected areas and remote areas away from the affected site in adults and children with CRPS type 1 compared to healthy controls. Additionally, we analyzed a broad range of variables including flare area after induction of noxious stimulus, pain area after pinprick induced hyperalgesia, pain ratings after noxious thermal stimulus, electric pain threshold, current perception thresholds, and pleasantness levels after C-tactile perception in an attempt to reach more conclusive results on the sensory profile and pain mechanisms of CRPS type 1.

Methods

Protocol registration

The review protocol was registered as an a priori study at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42021237157) and we used PRISMA guidelines (www.prisma-statement.org) to report this review.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they (1) compared adults (age ≥ 18 years) or adolescents and children (age < 18 years) with CRPS type 1 (symptoms duration ≥ 8 weeks) to healthy controls, (2) diagnosed CRPS type 1 (unilateral or bilateral) through clinical assessment and the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) or the Budapest criteria, (3) investigated any modality of QST, flare areas after noxious stimulus, conditioned pain modulation, pain rating after noxious stimulus, and pain area after induced pinprick hyperalgesia, and (4) were written in English. We excluded studies that combined results of sensory testing of CRPS with other neuropathic conditions and studies that used the unaffected side as the control site. Additionally, we focused on the QST outcomes for CRPS type 1 only, which is a deviation from the previously published protocol. The protocol stated that both the QST outcomes for CRPS type 1 and type 2 would be included. However, a meta-analysis requires at least two studies, and we found one study only on CRPS type 2 that met the eligibility criteria [15]. Also, there is an identifiable nerve lesion in CRPS type 2 but not in CRPS type 1, which precludes including studies on CRPS type 2 and 1 in the same meta-analysis as that would prevent us from reaching a comprehensive understanding of the sensory profile and type of pain present in such a complex syndrome.

The main included parameters to study the sensory profile of CRPS type 1 were (1) detection thresholds including warm detection threshold (WDT), cold detection threshold (CDT), thermal sensory limen (TSL), vibration detection threshold (VDT), and mechanical detection threshold (MDT); (2) pain thresholds including heat pain threshold (HPT), cold pain threshold (CPT), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and mechanical pain threshold (MPT); (3) temporal summation or wind up ratio (WUR); (4) conditioned pain modulation (CPM); (5) mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS); (6) dynamic mechanical allodynia (DMA); (7) flare area; (8) pain area after pinprick induced hyperalgesia; (9) current perception threshold; (10) electric pain threshold; and (11) pain ratings after thermal and mechanical stimuli. The definition of each variable is included in Table 1 [21,22,23,24].

Table 1 Definitions of sensory testing included in the review
Full size table

Search strategy and investigated databases

The main keywords of our search included complex regional pain syndrome, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, causalgia, central nervous system sensitization, hyperalgesia, quantitative sensory testing, conditioned pain modulation, hypoesthesia, wind-up ratio, mechanical hyperalgesia, temporal summation, thermal hyperalgesia, heat pain threshold, warm detection threshold, mechanical detection threshold, pressure pain threshold, allodynia, cold pain threshold, vibration detection threshold, cold detection threshold, mechanical pain sensitivity, mechanical pain threshold, thermal sensory limen, pain perception, electric pain threshold, current perception threshold, flare area, and laser Doppler imaging. Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCO host, SAGE, Cochrane library, and ProQuest databases/search engines were searched from inception to January 2022 (Table 2). To identify other eligible articles, a manual search of references of the included studies was done.

Table 2 Search keywords
Full size table

Study selection

After removing duplicates, two independent researchers (M.G.S. and K.A.H) screened the titles and abstracts of the relevant retrieved articles. The same two researchers obtained the full-text versions of the relevant articles and assessed them against the eligibility criteria. Conflicts were solved by discussion until a consensus was reached.

Risk of bias assessment

Two researchers (M.G.S. and K.A.H) independently used the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) for case–control and cohort studies to perform the risk of bias assessment. Three aspects were evaluated through the NOS using a star rating system: the selection of the study groups, the comparability of the groups, and the ascertainment of the exposure or outcome of interest. Each aspect contains several items that can be scored with one star, except for comparability, which can score up to two stars (Table 3) [25]. The highest possible NOS score is 9. According to Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) standards, studies were deemed to be of good quality if they received three or four stars in the selection domain, one or two stars in the comparability domain, and two or three stars in the outcome/exposure domain. Studies were deemed to be of fair quality if they received two stars in the selection domain, one or two stars in the comparability domain, and two or three stars in the outcome/exposure domain. Studies were deemed to be of low quality if they received a score of zero or one in the selection domain, zero star in the comparability domain, or zero or one star in the outcome/exposure domain. Researchers were blind to the study authors when performing the risk of bias assessment. Inter-rater agreement between the two researchers was calculated using non-weighted Kappa statistics and respective 95% confidence interval (CI). A third researcher (A.G.S) was contacted if consensus was not reached.

Table 3 Results of risk of bias assessment
Full size table

Data extraction

Data extracted from the included articles were: authors, year of publication, number of participants, diagnostic criteria for CRPS, type, and raw data of measurements (CPT, HPT, PPT, CDT, WDT, TSL, VDT, MDT, MPS, MPT, DMA, WUR, pain area after pinprick hyperalgesia, pain ratings, and CPM), body site where measurements were taken, pain intensity, and details of QST parameters and measurement procedures (including method, number of trials, and devices used) (Table 4). Data extraction was performed by one researcher (M.G.S.) and revised by another researcher (A.G.S.) to confirm the data were correctly gathered. Corresponding authors of the included studies were contacted if there were missing data.

Table 4 Results summary of the eligible articles
Full size table

Data management and meta-analysis

The raw data from individual articles were extracted (Table 4), grouped based on the applied measurements (CPT, HPT, PPT, CDT, WDT, TSL, VDT, MDT, MPS, MPT, DMA, WUR, pain area after pinprick hyperalgesia, pain ratings, and CPM), and further clustered according to age into: (1) patients with chronic CRPS type 1 ≥ 18 years and (2) patients with CRPS type 1 < 18 years. For each age group, the outcomes were clustered according to body location into (1) affected area and (2) remote areas away from the affected site. If a cluster of specific measurements contained at least two studies reporting means and standard deviations for patients with CRPS and healthy controls, a meta-analysis was performed [26].

Meta-analysis was conducted using the Review Manager computer program (RevMan 5.4) by Cochrane collaboration. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and the corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on inverse variance weighting [27]. SMD effect size values between 0.2 and 0.5 are regarded as small, 0.5 to 0.8 as medium, and values higher than 0.8 as large [28]. Egger’s regression test was conducted when there were 10 or more effect sizes to assess publication bias [29, 30] and represented graphically by Begg’s funnel plot [31]. If the p value of Egger’s regression test was less than 0.10, it is considered significant. Whenever publication bias was found, we applied the trim and fill method of Duvall and Tweedie to enhance the symmetry through adding the studies supposed to be missed [32]. To assess the heterogeneity, I2 was measured and classified into: 0%–40%: no heterogeneity, 30%–60%: moderate, 50%–90%: substantial, and 75%–100%: considerable [33]. We determined the borderline I2 values based on the magnitude and direction of effects and the strength of evidence for heterogeneity. So, if there is 50% heterogeneity with a narrower confidence interval and a large effect size, the amount of heterogeneity becomes moderate, whereas heterogeneity is substantial with a wide confidence interval and a small effect size. [33].

The overall effect was significant if the p value was less than 0.05. Studies not included in the meta-analysis were reported separately. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the studies with high risk of bias based on the NOS assessment.

GRADE assessment was conducted to check for the certainty of obtained results [34, 35]. One author checked the quality of the evidence considering five domains: (i) risk of bias, (ii) inconsistency of results, (iii) indirectness, (iv) imprecision, and (v) publication bias. At the baseline rating, the studies were considered “low-quality” evidence, due to the observational study design, and then, the rating was upgraded or downgraded the ratings based on the judgment for each of the five domains listed above. The overall quality rating of the evidence was classified as high, moderate, low, or very low evidence [34, 35].

A few studies included median and interquartile ranges, and Wan’s method was used to convert this data into mean and SD [36]. Cochrane guidelines formula was used to convert CI and standard error of mean into SD to be added in the meta-analysis [37].

Results

Study selection

The search yielded 4918 articles identified through different databases, with 4 additional studies identified through manual search [38,39,40,41]. The flowchart of the systematic review is shown in Fig. 1. The titles and abstracts of the remaining articles after removing duplicates were screened (n = 4001), and the full texts of 116 articles were read. Forty articles were included in this review [14,15,16, 18, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73, 76] articles were excluded. Reasons for exclusion were: use of animal models (e.g., Ohmichi et al.’s study [74]), different experimental design (e.g., Drummond et al. study [75]), absence of a control group or of a group of individuals with CRPS (e.g., Vaneker et al. study [76]), or inability to obtain the full text (eight studies). The corresponding authors of five publications were contacted requesting data for the meta-analysis [39, 66, 69, 71, 72]. Three authors replied and sent the required information [15, 39, 69].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Study characteristics

Ten studies were included in the qualitative analysis based on z-scores [14, 39, 40, 53, 61, 66, 68, 71,72,73], and the frequencies of gain and loss of sensations in CRPS were mentioned in six studies (Table 5) [14, 15, 44, 53, 65, 69]. Twenty-six studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Two studies investigated the sensory profile of patients with CRPS accompanied by dystonia [50, 70], and we included these results in the meta-analysis as we aimed to summarize the sensory profile and underlying pain mechanisms in individuals with CRPS in general. Two studies assessed the level of pleasantness after c-tactile touch perception in CRPS, and we included these results in the meta-analysis to illustrate the functionality of this specific type of C-fibers in CRPS [71, 72].

Rooijen et al. reported the QST results for two groups of individuals with CRPS: one group with dystonia and one group without dystonia [50]. We included the results of both groups in our review. Huge et al. investigated the results of QST in acute and chronic CRPS, but we included only the results of the chronic group in our review [47]. Gierthmühlen et al. described the results of QST for two groups of CRPS (a group with type 1 and the other group with type 2), comparing them to the control group, while we added only the results of QST of CRPS type 1 to the quantitative analysis and after contacting the authors we got the reference values based on Magerl et al. [15, 77]. Kemler et al. reported the results of QST for two groups of individuals with CRPS (one group with upper extremity CRPS and one group with lower extremity CRPS) [44]. We included the results of both groups in our meta-analysis. Thimineur et al. investigated pain ratings after the application of diluted ethanol on the tongue [57]. The results of this study were not included in the meta-analysis of pain ratings after noxious stimulus, because the methods used were very different from the methods used in the other studies. Mainka et al. and Terkelsen et al. [18, 49] assessed both joint and muscle PPTs, which were included in a separate meta-analysis, one related to the muscle and the other to the joint PPTs, respectively.

Uçeyler et al. and Enax-krumova et al. [16, 66] used the same cohort of patients with CRPS and controls. Thus, we added only the results of Uçeyler et al. in the quantitative analysis.

König et al. [40] investigated a subgroup of patients with CRPS that was previously investigated in König et al. [39]. Thus, only the results of König et al. [39] were used in our review.

Two studies investigated the pleasantness level after C-tactile touch perception using brush stroking with a velocity of 3 cm/s both at the affected and contralateral sides. This variable was included in our review, despite addressing a variable not reported in the study protocol, as pleasantness levels could expand our knowledge about the sensory profile and the underlying pain mechanisms in CRPS [71, 72].

Studies that investigated endogenous pain modulation could not be used in the meta-analysis because of different methodological approaches [45, 53]. One study used repetitive electrical stimuli [45], while the other study used a restricted CPM paradigm [53].

Risk of bias

Quality assessment of the included studies is represented in Table 3, and Kappa statistics for agreement between the two reviewers was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.56–0.95), which is considered substantial agreement [78]. None of the 41 articles included in this review had a score above 7 points out of a maximum score of 9. Most of the included studies were of fair quality as the mean quality score was greater than 4. Only one study reported the non-response rate [18], and all studies had the same ascertainment for cases and controls.

Sensory profile of adult patients with CRPS

Cold detection threshold

Seven studies (one with low quality and six with fair quality), including a total of 505 patients with CRPS, investigated CDT on the affected area [15, 43, 44, 47, 50, 67, 70] and showed a significant loss of cold detection sensation with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 1: Fig. S1) (Table 6). Furthermore, there was symmetry in the funnel plot of included effect sizes (Additional file 2: Fig. S2).

Table 5 Frequencies of sensory gain and loss in CRPS based on QST
Full size table
Table 6 Summary of the meta-analysis results
Full size table

Six studies (one with low quality and five with fair quality), including a total of 245 patients with CRPS, investigated CDT [43, 44, 47, 51, 67, 70] in areas remote from the affected area showing a significant loss of cold sensation with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 3: Fig. S3) (Table 6). Also, there was no significant publication bias (p = 0.9) (Additional file 4: Fig. S4).

Seven studies (two with low quality and five with fair quality) using z-scores to investigate CDT showed loss of cold sensation on the affected side [39, 47, 66, 68, 71,72,73], and two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) showed loss of cold sensation on the contralateral limb [39, 47]. One study of fair quality showed no between-group difference [14].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting loss of the cold sensation in patients with CRPS, either at the affected site or the remote areas away from the affected site (Table 6).

Warm detection threshold

The meta-analysis of seven studies (one with low quality and six with fair quality) including a total of 505 CRPS patients (Additional file 5: Fig. S5) (Table 6) [15, 43, 44, 47, 50, 67, 70] showed a significant loss of warm sensation on the affected site, with moderate heterogeneity. Furthermore, there was symmetry in the funnel plot of included effect sizes (Additional file 6: Fig. S6).

The meta-analysis of six studies (one with low quality and five with fair quality) including a total of 245 CRPS patients for areas remote from the affected area (Additional file 7: Fig. S7) (Table 6) [43, 44, 47, 51, 67, 70] showed a significant loss of warm sensation, with moderate heterogeneity. Also, there was no significant publication bias (p = 0.14) (Additional file 8: Fig. S8).

Nine studies (two with low quality and seven with fair quality) using z-scores showed loss of warm sensation at the affected side [14, 39, 47, 53, 66, 68, 71,72,73], and two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) showed loss of warm sensation on the contralateral limb [39, 47].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting loss warm sensations in patients with CRPS, either at the affected site or the remote areas away from the affected site (Table 6).

Thermal sensory limen

Four studies (one with low quality and three with fair quality) with a total of 659 patients with CRPS showed a significant loss of thermal sensations on the affected regions, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 65%; p = 0.02) (Additional file 9: Fig. S9) (Table 6) [15, 47, 57, 67].

A meta-analysis of three studies (one with low quality and two with fair quality) with a total of 894 patients with CRPS for areas remote from the affected area showed a significant loss of thermal sensation, with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 10: Fig. S10) (Table 6) [47, 57, 67].

Eight studies (two with low quality and six with fair quality) using z-scores showed loss of thermal sensations at the affected side [39, 47, 53, 66, 68, 71,72,73], and two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) showed loss of thermal sensations on the contralateral limb [39, 47].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting loss of thermal sensations in patients with CRPS, either at the affected site or the remote areas away from the affected side (Table 6).

Mechanical detection threshold

A meta-analysis of five studies (three with low quality and two with fair quality) including a total of 513 patients with CRPS showed a significant loss of mechanical detection sensation on the affected regions, without heterogeneity (Additional file 11: Fig. S11) (Table 6) [15, 44, 45, 52, 57].

A meta-analysis of four studies (three with low quality and one with fair quality) with a total of 292 patients with CRPS showed a significant loss of mechanical detection sensation on the remote areas, without significant heterogeneity (Additional file 12: Fig. S12) (Table 6) [44, 45, 52, 57].

Four studies (one with low quality and three with fair quality) using z-scores showed loss of mechanical detection sensation in patients with CRPS [14, 39, 47, 72], and three studies (one with low quality and two with fair quality) showed no between-group differences [66, 68, 73]. Two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) showed loss of mechanical detection sensation in the contralateral limb [39, 47].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting loss of mechanical detection sensations in patients either at the affected site or the remote areas away from the affected site (Table 6).

Vibration detection threshold

A meta-analysis of four studies of fair quality including a total of a total of 385 patients with CRPS showed a significant loss of vibration detection sensation on the affected regions, without significant heterogeneity (Additional file 13: Fig. S13) (Table 6) [15, 38, 50, 67].

A meta-analysis of three studies of fair quality including a total of 163 patients with CRPS reported a significant loss of vibration sensation on areas remote from the affected area, without significant heterogeneity (Additional file 14: Fig. S14) (Table 6) [38, 51, 67].

Six studies (two with low quality and four with fair quality) using z-scores showed loss of vibration sensation on the affected side [39, 47, 66, 68, 72, 73], one study of fair quality showed no between-group difference [14], and two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) showed loss of vibration sensation on the contralateral side [39, 47].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was moderate-quality evidence suggesting loss of vibration sensations in patients with CRPS, either at the affected site or the remote areas away from the affected site (Table 6).

Cold pain threshold

Seven studies (one with low quality, five with fair quality, and one with good quality) investigated CPT on the affected areas in 481 patients with CRPS showing significant gain of CPT compared to healthy controls, with substantial heterogeneity (Additional file 15: Fig. S15) (Table 6) [15, 18, 43, 44, 47, 50, 67]. Furthermore, there was asymmetry in the funnel plot of included effect sizes (Additional file 16: Fig. S16).

Meta-analysis of six studies (one with low quality, four with fair quality, and one with good quality) including a total of 240 patients with CRPS investigated CPT in areas remote from the affected area and showed a significant gain of CPT in CRPS compared to healthy controls, without significant heterogeneity (Additional file 17: Fig. S17) (Table 6) [18, 43, 44, 47, 51, 67]. There was also no publication bias (p = 0.5) (Additional file 18: Fig. S18).

Six studies (one with low quality and five with fair quality) showed a sensory gain of CPT based on z-scores at the affected site of CRPS [39, 47, 53, 68, 71, 72], while three studies (one with low quality and two with fair quality) showed no between-group differences [14, 66, 73] and two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) showed a gain of cold pain sensation on the contralateral side [39, 47].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting gain of cold pain thresholds in patients with CRPS at the affected site, but at remote areas, there was moderate-quality evidence (Table 6).

Heat pain threshold

A meta-analysis of nine studies (one with low quality, seven with fair quality, and one with good quality) including a total of 548 patients with CRPS showed a significant gain of HPT on the affected area of patients with CRPS, with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 19: Fig. S19) (Table 6) [15, 18, 43, 44, 47, 50, 62, 67, 70]. Furthermore, there was no significant publication bias (p = 0.60) (Additional file 20: Fig. S20).

A meta-analysis of eight studies (one with low quality, six with fair quality, and one with good quality) including a total of 288 patients with CRPS reported a significant gain of HPT in areas remote from the affected area, without significant heterogeneity (Additional file 21: Fig. S21) (Table 6) [18, 43, 44, 47, 51, 62, 67, 70]. Also, there was no significant publication bias (p = 0.4) (Additional file 22: Fig. S22).

Six studies (one with low quality and five with fair quality) showed a sensory gain of HPT on the affected site using z-scores [14, 39, 47, 68, 71, 72], while two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) showed no differences [66, 73] and two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) showed a gain of heat pain sensation on the contralateral side [39, 47].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was moderate-quality evidence suggesting gain of heat pain thresholds in patients with CRPS, either at the affected site or the remote areas away from the affected site (Table 6).

Mechanical pain threshold

On the affected side, a meta-analysis of four studies (two with low quality and two with fair quality) including a total of 375 patients with CRPS reported a significant gain of MPT in patients with CRPS, with considerable heterogeneity (Additional file 23: Fig. S23) (Table 6) [15, 45, 56, 67].

On the remote areas, a meta-analysis of two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) with a total of 47 patients with CRPS and 34 healthy controls showed no group difference, without heterogeneity (Additional file 24: Fig. S24) (Table 6) [45, 67].

Based on z-scores, five studies (two of low quality and three of fair quality) showed a sensory gain of MPT on the affected site in patients with CRPS [39, 47, 68, 72, 73], while three studies of fair quality showed no between-group differences [14, 66, 71] and two studies (one of low quality and one of fair quality) showed a gain of MPT on the contralateral side [39, 47].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was very low-quality evidence suggesting gain of mechanical pain thresholds in patients with CRPS at the affected site, but at remote areas, there was low-quality evidence suggesting that there was no difference (Table 6).

Pressure pain threshold

The meta-analysis of nine studies (three with low quality, five with fair quality, and one with good quality) with a total of 507 patients with CRPS showed a significant gain of muscle PPT on the affected site in CRPS, with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 25: Fig. S25) (Table 6) [15, 18, 38, 48,49,50, 52, 63, 67]. There was also no significant publication bias (p = 0.12) (Additional file 26: Fig. S26).

On the remote areas, a meta-analysis of nine studies (four with low quality, four with fair quality, and one with good quality) investigating muscle PPT showed a significant gain of PPT in CRPS, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 84%; p < 0.01) (Additional file 27: Fig. S27) (Table 6) [18, 38, 49, 51, 52, 54, 57, 63, 67]. Also, there was a significant publication bias. After adjusting for publication bias, the PPT difference between CRPS and controls was increased (SMD, − 0.44; 95% CI, − 0.55, − 0.12), with no change in the significance level (p < 0.01); heterogeneity remained considerable (Additional file 28: Fig. S28).

Eight studies (three with low quality and five with fair quality) using z-scores showed a gain of muscle PPT at the affected site of patients with CRPS [14, 39, 47, 66, 68, 71,72,73], while at the contralateral side, one study of fair quality showed a gain of PPT in CRPS [47] and another one of low quality showed no difference [39]. Moreover, one study of fair quality showed a significant gain of PPT on the affected side and remote areas including face, chest, abdomen, and back [55].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting gain of pressure pain thresholds of the affected muscles in patients with CRPS, either at the affected site or the remote areas away from the affected site (Table 6).

A meta-analysis of two studies (one with low quality and one with good quality) investigating PPT on affected joints reported a significant gain of PPT in CRPS, without significant heterogeneity (Additional file 29: Fig. S29) (Table 6) [18, 49].

In the remote joints, a meta-analysis of two studies (one with low quality and one with good quality) reported no difference of PPT in CRPS, with considerable heterogeneity (Additional file 30: Fig. S30) (Table 6) [18, 49].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was moderate-quality evidence suggesting gain of pressure pain thresholds of the affected joints in patients with CRPS, but at remote joints, there was low-quality evidence suggesting that there was no difference (Table 6).

Mechanical pain sensitivity

The meta-analysis of five studies (two with low quality and three with fair quality) including a total of 396 patients with CRPS showed a significant elevation of MPS in CRPS, with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 31: Fig. S31) (Table 6) [15, 56, 62, 63, 67].

In the remote areas, a meta-analysis of three studies (one with low quality and two with fair quality) showed no difference, with substantial heterogeneity (Additional file 32: Fig. S32) (Table 6) [62, 63, 67].

Five studies (one with low quality and four with fair quality) showed an elevated MPS on the affected site of patients with CRPS based on z-scores [39, 47, 68, 71, 72], while three studies (one with low quality and two with fair quality) showed no differences [14, 66, 73] and two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) showed elevated MPS on the contralateral side of CRPS [39, 47].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was moderate-quality evidence suggesting enhanced mechanical pain sensitivity of the affected site in patients with CRPS, but at remote areas, there was very low-quality evidence suggesting that there was no difference (Table 6).

Wind-up ratio

A meta-analysis of five studies (one with low quality and four with fair quality) including a total of 374 patients with CRPS found no difference of WUR at the affected area, with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 33: Fig. S33) (Table 6) [15, 50, 56, 62, 67].

On the remote areas, a meta-analysis of two studies with fair quality investigated WUR in 37 patients with CRPS showed no difference, with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 34: Fig. S34) (Table 6) [62, 67].

Based on z-scores, four studies (two with low quality and two with fair quality) showed no differences in WUR on the affected site [14, 39, 66, 73] and one study of fair quality showed elevated WUR on the affected area in patients with CRPS [72].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting that there was no difference between the levels of wind-up ratio, either at the affected site or the remote areas away from the affected site (Table 6).

Pain ratings after the noxious stimulus

A meta-analysis of five studies (three with low quality, one with fair quality, and one with good quality) reported a significant elevation of pain ratings in CRPS on the affected site, with substantial heterogeneity (Additional file 35: Fig. S35) (Table 6) [18, 42, 43, 45, 56].

In the remote areas, a meta-analysis of four studies (two with low quality, one with fair quality, and one with good quality) reported a significant elevation of pain ratings in CRPS, without significant heterogeneity (Additional file 36: Fig. S36) (Table 6) [18, 42, 43, 45].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting elevated pain ratings in patients with CRPS, either at the affected site or the remote areas away from the affected site (Table 6).

Area after pinprick hyperalgesia

Meta-analysis of two low-quality studies including a total of 47 patients with CRPS showed a significant increase in the area of hyperalgesia on the affected site of patients with CRPS, with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 37: Fig. S37) (Table 6) [45, 56].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting a significant increase in the area of hyperalgesia on the affected site of patients with CRPS (Table 6).

Flare area after electric stimulus

Two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) investigated flare areas using laser Doppler imaging [45, 58]. Weber et al. showed a significant increase in flare area after the application of electric stimulus, while Seifert et al. showed no difference between patients with CRPS and healthy controls. We could not add the results in the meta-analysis because of the different techniques used; Weber et al. inserted cutaneous microdialysis fiber to assess protein extravasation while blocking the radial and peroneal nerves at the wrist and ankle, respectively. This could interfere with the assessment of the flare area that occurred after inserting the microdialysis fiber. Seifert et al. assessed the flare area before and after electric stimulation of the affected area without inserting the microdialysis fiber or blocking the radial and peroneal nerves.

Electric pain threshold and current detection threshold

Two low-quality studies investigated the sensory profile after the application of electric current [45, 59]. Seifert et al. used a 1 Hz electric current to measure both pain and detection thresholds and found no differences between CRPS patients (affected and contralateral sides) and healthy controls [45]. Raj et al. used electric current of different frequencies and showed that 64% of patients with CRPS had abnormal electric pain threshold, while a percentage of 33% showed abnormal current detection threshold on the affected side, with some abnormalities on the contralateral side [59]. Thus, there were inconsistent findings regarding both electric pain and detection thresholds in CRPS, which need further investigations.

Dynamic mechanical allodynia

Several studies indicated the presence of DMA in CRPS [15, 42,43,44,45, 55, 59, 67, 69].

Paradoxical heat sensation

Several studies indicated that PHS is not frequent in CRPS [14, 15, 47, 53, 67, 69, 73].

Endogenous pain modulation

Two studies (one with low quality and one with fair quality) investigated endogenous pain modulation in CRPS [45, 53]. One study used conditioned pain modulation and found comparable descending pain modulation in patients with CRPS and controls [53]. Seifert et al. showed enhanced pain facilitation in CRPS after using repetitive electric pulse stimulation [45].

Level of pleasantness in CRPS

Two fair-quality studies looked at the pleasantness level following c-tactile touch perception on the affected side, and their meta-analysis revealed that CRPS patients had significantly lower pleasantness levels than healthy controls, without heterogeneity (Additional file 38: Fig. S38) (Table 6) [71, 72].

On the contralateral side, the meta-analysis of two studies of fair quality investigating the pleasantness level after c-tactile touch perception showed no difference in pleasantness level on the contralateral limb of CRPS compared with healthy controls, with moderate heterogeneity (Additional file 39: Fig. S39) (Table 6) [71, 72].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was moderate-quality evidence suggesting a significant reduction of pleasantness levels at the affected site in patients with CRPS, but at remote joints, there was low-quality evidence suggesting that there was no difference (Table 6).

Sensory profile of children with CRPS

Cold detection threshold

The meta-analysis of two fair-quality studies including a total of 76 children with CRPS showed a significant loss of cold sensation on the affected areas of CRPS, with substantial heterogeneity (Additional file 40: Fig. S40) (Table 6) [46, 64].

On the contralateral side, a meta-analysis of two fair-quality studies including a total of 76 children with CRPS showed no difference in CDT between patients with CRPS and controls, with considerable heterogeneity (Additional file 41: Fig. S41) (Table 6) [46, 64].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting loss of cold sensations of the affected site in patients with CRPS, but at the contralateral side, there was low-quality evidence suggesting that there was no difference (Table 6).

Warm detection threshold

The meta-analysis of two studies with fair quality including a total of 76 children with CRPS reported no difference in warm sensation on the affected areas between patients with CRPS and controls, with considerable heterogeneity (Additional file 42: Fig. S42) (Table 6) [46, 64].

On the contralateral side, a meta-analysis of two fair-quality studies including a total of 76 children with CRPS reported no difference in WDT between patients with CRPS and controls, with considerable heterogeneity (Additional file 43: Fig. S43) (Table 6) [46, 64].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting that there was no difference of warm sensations in patients with CRPS, either at the affected site or the contralateral side (Table 6).

Cold pain threshold

A meta-analysis of three fair-quality studies including a total of 102 children with CRPS showed a significant gain of CPT on the affected site of CRPS, with considerable heterogeneity (Additional file 44: Fig. 44) (Table 6) [41, 46, 64].

On the contralateral side, a meta-analysis of two fair-quality studies including a total of 76 children with CRPS reported no difference in CPT between patients with CRPS and controls, without significant heterogeneity (Additional file 45: Fig. S45) (Table 6) [46, 64].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting gain of cold pain thresholds of the affected site in patients with CRPS, but at the contralateral side, there was low-quality evidence suggesting that there was no difference (Table 6).

Heat pain threshold

On the affected side, a meta-analysis of three fair-quality studies including a total of 102 children with CRPS reported no difference in HPT between patients with CRPS and controls, with considerable heterogeneity (Additional file 46: Fig. 46) (Table 6) [41, 46, 64].

On the contralateral side, a meta-analysis of two fair-quality studies including a total of 76 children with CRPS reported no difference in HPT between patients with CRPS and controls, with considerable heterogeneity (Additional file 47: Fig. S47) (Table 6) [46, 64].

According to the GRADE assessment, there was low-quality evidence suggesting that there was no difference of heat pain thresholds in patients with CRPS, either at the affected site or the contralateral side (Table 6).

Frequencies of sensory abnormalities in adult with CRPS

Regarding the percentage of sensory loss and hyperalgesia, 25% to 33% of patients with CRPS showed a thermal and mechanical sensory loss, between 60 to 100% of patients showed pressure pain hyperalgesia, and 30% to 40% of patients showed thermal hyperalgesia (Table 5) [14, 15, 69].

Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was carried out, and studies with a high risk of bias were omitted. As a result, p values of the effect sizes were not significantly impacted for all outcomes except TSL of remote areas and MPT of the afflicted site, which showed a non-significant difference. Levels of heterogeneity were also not significantly impacted except for CDT of the affected site, WUR of the affected site, pain rating of the affected site, MPT of the affected site, and MPS of the affected site and the remote areas, which showed a significant reduction. However, after adjusting for low-quality studies, levels of heterogeneity of MDT of the affected site and TSL of the remote areas were significantly increased.

Discussion

This systematic review aimed to summarize the current literature on QST measurements, pain ratings after noxious stimulus, area of pinprick hyperalgesia, and flare area in patients with CRPS to examine the sensory profile and underlying pain mechanisms.

Adult patients with CRPS showed loss of all detection thresholds (CDT, WDT, MDT, VDT, and TSL) compared to controls, both in the affected and contralateral sides. Also, there was a significant gain in CPT, HPT, and PPT both in the affected and remote areas. Furthermore, pain ratings after noxious stimulus showed significant elevation in the affected and contralateral areas, while MPS was elevated in the affected area only. The area of pinprick hyperalgesia was larger in CRPS compared to healthy controls, while the results for flare area were contradictory. The sensory profile of children with CRPS showed loss of cold sensation and cold hyperalgesia in the affected region without apparent sensory deficits at the remote areas away from the affected site.

Interestingly, adult patients with CRPS showed both sensory loss and primary and secondary hyperalgesia for all pain stimuli in the affected and remote areas, which strongly suggests the involvement of central nervous system and central sensitization [79,80,81]. This has also been supported by investigations in CRPS patients, which revealed bilateral structural and functional abnormalities in brain areas important for pain processing, cognition, and motor behavior [79, 81, 82]. Thus, central sensitization can be initiated by the enhanced peripheral sensitization (enhanced local hyperalgesia) [47, 83], or neuroplasticity at the spinal and brain levels (hemisensory abnormalities and increased area after pinprick hyperalgesia) [45, 63, 70, 84, 85], or the release of inflammatory mediators after tissue injury as substance p, bradykinin, calcitonin gene-related peptide, interleukin-1β, -2, -6, and tumor necrosis factor-α [8, 86, 87]. The diffuse sensory loss discovered in this meta-analysis could be attributed to decreased neurite density in both affected and unaffected sides of CRPS patients, or it could have a central origin [19, 43, 72, 88]. Finally, the reduced pleasantness level in CRPS could indicate loss of small nerve fibers and central nervous system remodeling as the pleasantness levels reduced more in patients with CRPS accompanied with depression and allodynia than those without allodynia and depression [71, 72].

Comparing the sensory phenotype in CRPS with neuropathic pain conditions reveals distinct sensory patterns. In carpal tunnel syndrome, recent study revealed dominant sensory loss localized only to the affected hand area with inconclusive evidence about central sensitization [89]. Also, in different radiculopathies, the sensory loss was localized to maximum pain area and dermatomal area with inconclusive picture about the presence of hyperalgesia [90,91,92]. Even in migraine, the impaired pain processing was localized to the affected area [93]. Recently, a new study suggested contralateral spread of sensory loss in painful and painless unilateral neuropathy with slightly limited spread of hyperalgesia [94]. In contrast, the sensory loss and thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia in CRPS were diffuse as evidenced by bilateral sensory loss and bilateral reduction of neurite density. Comparing CRPS to other chronic conditions as tendinitis and arthritis, CRPS showed more prominent thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia [95,96,97]. Comparing CRPS to chronic conditions with unknown etiology such as fibromyalgia shows comparable results both at the level of diffuse sensory loss or hyperalgesia or reduced level of pleasantness after C-tactile perception [52, 98, 99], which could suggest shared pain mechanisms and etiologies. Such findings could support classifying CRPS as a nociplastic pain type instead of neuropathic pain type [100], in agreement with the recent definition and grading system of neuropathic pain and IASP recent classification which excluded CRPS [100,101,102]. Interestingly, there was evidence of the presence of different comorbidities in CRPS such as sleep disturbances, post-traumatic stress disorder, and increased sensitivity to light and auditory stimuli [6, 12, 103,104,105] that strongly suggest a nociplastic mechanism for CRPS. Also, the frequency of sensory abnormalities in CRPS is more consistent than the frequencies found in previous studies for neuropathic pain conditions. In carpal tunnel syndrome, the percentage of patients with sensory loss was found to range from 22 to 33%, thermal hyperalgesia from 1 to 45%, and mechanical hyperalgesia from 20 to 45% [92, 106, 107].

Regarding CPM in CRPS, there were two studies discussing endogenous pain modulation in CRPS. One study showed enhanced pain facilitation rather than impaired descending pain inhibition after using repetitive noxious electrical stimuli [45]. The other study showed unimpaired descending pain inhibition when using the restricted CPM paradigm (heat was used as a test stimulus and cold as a conditioning stimulus) [53]. These contradictory results might be explained by the different disease duration (mean duration was 22 months in the study of Seifert et al., while the maximum disease duration was 12 months in the study of Kumowski et al.) and/or by the different procedures of assessment of endogenous pain modulation. Fortunately, offset analgesia is a paradigm which can also assess endogenous pain modulation that showed impaired pain inhibition in patients with CRPS [108].

No difference was found for temporal summation, represented by WUR, between individuals with CRPS and controls both in the affected and the contralateral limb. This might be due to the small cohort of patients with CRPS in the included studies that investigated WUR, except for Gierthmühlen et al. [15], who showed elevated WUR in a large cohort of patients with CRPS. Importantly, the diffuse loss of small nerve fibers bilaterally can cause the absence of WUR both in the affected and the contralateral regions [43]. Interestingly, WUR of CRPS type II (with evidence of nerve injury) showed no difference when compared to the control group [15], similar to the findings of WUR in CTS (median nerve injury) which showed no difference also [89].

Sensory profile of children and adolescents with CRPS showed loss of cold sensation and cold hyperalgesia at the affected region only, indicating less severe form of CRPS in this age group. Interestingly, children and adolescent with CRPS showed better prognosis and improvement than adults with CRPS, which might be related to the less severe sensory abnormalities [109]. Importantly, the findings of sensory profile of children and adolescents with CRPS are based on three studies only, which prevents us from drawing a comprehensive sensory profile.

Limitations of the review

Since the overall level of certainty ranged from very low to moderate based on the GRADE assessment [34, 35], the results should be regarded with caution. There were various issues that decreased the general level of certainty. At first, the included studies were observational studies with poor to good quality ratings. Second, there was moderate to substantial heterogeneity across the obtained results. Finally, the meta-analysis of several QST outcomes was based on a small number of studies, and the effect sizes occasionally appear small with large confidence intervals.

It is important to highlight that the sensitivity analysis controlling for low-quality studies (meta-analyses were repeated while excluding studies with high risk of bias) showed a non-significant effect either at the levels of heterogeneity or the obtained effect sizes and corresponding p values of most outcomes. Therefore, the degree of heterogeneity seen in the results might not be explained by the risk of bias of the included studies.

Possible causes of heterogeneity might include the different disease duration of CRPS across the included studies (ranging from six months to five years). Disease duration seems to result in different sensory profiles in patients with CRPS [14, 47, 70]. Thus, future studies might consider comparing sensory profiles of patients with CRPS of different durations. This heterogeneity may be also explained by several factors, starting with the diagnostic criteria for CRPS, which were modified to rely on the Budapest criteria [1] rather than the previous IASP standards [110]. Second, based on the predominant pathophysiology, a recent categorization is better able to distinguish between three clusters of individuals with CRPS type 1 and type 2: CRPS of central phenotype, CRPS of peripheral phenotype, and CRPS of mixed phenotype [111]. As a result, limiting the classification of CRPS to type 1 and type 2 may produce inconsistent results. It is interesting to note that the outcomes of this review are comparable to the findings of the one study that looked at the QST outcomes in CRPS type 2 [15]. This could provide credibility to the current division into three phenotypes.

It is noteworthy to mention that some of the included studies recruited a mix of CRPS type 1 and type 2 which might represent a potential cause of heterogeneity. However, the number patients with CRPS type 2 included in these studies was very small. For example, Terkelsen et al. recruited 2 patients with CRPS type 2 and 18 patients with CRPS type 1[18].

The results of the quantitative sensory testing outcomes of adolescents and children with CRPS were only examined in three studies, which limited the conclusions. Therefore, additional research is required to support the findings of the present review.

Conclusion

A mix of diffuse thermal and mechanical sensory loss and hyperalgesias in the affected and remote areas is the dominant sensory phenotype in CRPS indicating the dominant peripheral and central sensitization as key underlying pain mechanisms. There is some evidence regarding the enhanced pain facilitation more than impaired descending pain inhibition as evident by elevated thermal and mechanical pain ratings and increased areas of pinprick hyperalgesia. Such results could indicate the involvement of small nerve fibers both at the affected and remote areas. Adolescents and children with CRPS showed less severe form of sensory abnormalities as evident with loss of cold detection sensation and cold hyperalgesia at the affected site.

Future implications of the review

Further research is needed investigating the efficacy of the descending pain inhibition in patients with CRPS, as well as the widespread sensory loss and hyperalgesia, the pleasantness level after C-tactile stimulation, the electric pain and detection thresholds, and the area of pinprick hyperalgesia of the affected site and remote areas.

As evident from this review, there was a diffuse loss of sensation in patients with CRPS. Thus, the previous studies which compared the QST outcomes of the affected area to that of the contralateral healthy side might result in inconsistent findings as well as might hinder the progress in providing better treatment options. We suggest comparing the affected or contralateral side with reference values of healthy subjects or control group, to avoid any bias.

Previous research revealed that the sensory deficits extended from the affected area to the ipsilateral body sites more compared to the contralateral side [84, 85]. Thus, such studies lacked the presence of control group, while we suggest comparing the results of QST in affected areas, areas in the ipsilateral side away from the affected region, and control group. It is noteworthy that Rooijen et al. investigated the sensory deficits in CRPS affected area, contralateral area, and ipsilateral areas away from the affected region but this study included both patients with CRPS with dystonia and without dystonia [51]. Moreover, face area showed specific sensory abnormalities in patients with CRPS [51, 63] which indeed needs further investigations.

A group of CRPS patients had elevated WUR, whereas another group had no difference when compared to healthy controls. Future research will therefore be required to determine the relationship between the decline in small fiber density and the change in WUR, as it is possible that the decline in small fiber density could prevent the change of the WUR.

Finally, in order to inform better treatment options, it is crucial to compare the new classification of CRPS into three phenotypes (central, peripheral, and mixed) with the existing classification into type 1 and 2. The first step is to investigate the sensory profile of CRPS type 2 and compare it to the results of our review. This could indicate the same sensory profiles and the same underlying pain mechanisms. Thus, the necessity to switch over to the new classification would then likely be of vital importance.

References

  1. Harden RN, et al. Validation of proposed diagnostic criteria (the “Budapest Criteria”) for complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2010;150(2):268–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. de Mos M, et al. The incidence of complex regional pain syndrome: a population-based study. Pain. 2007;129(1–2):12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goh EL, Chidambaram S, Ma D. Complex regional pain syndrome: a recent update. Burns Trauma 2017;5:2.

  4. Bean DJ, Johnson MH, Kydd RR. Relationships Between Psychological Factors, Pain, and Disability in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and Low Back Pain. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 2014;30(8):647–53.

  5. Lohnberg JA, Altmaier EM. A review of psychosocial factors in complex regional pain syndrome. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2013;20(2):247–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Drummond PD, Finch PM. Photophobia in complex regional pain syndrome: visual discomfort is greater on the affected than unaffected side. Pain. 2020;162(4):1233–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shim H, et al. Complex regional pain syndrome: a narrative review for the practising clinician. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(2):e424–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Birklein F, Schmelz MJ. Neuropeptides, neurogenic inflammation and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Neurosci Lett. 2008;437(3):199–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cheng J-K, Ji R-R. Intracellular signaling in primary sensory neurons and persistent pain. Neurochem Res. 2008;33(10):1970–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwartzman RJ, Alexander GM, Grothusen J. Pathophysiology of complex regional pain syndrome. Expert Rev Neurother. 2006;6(5):669–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Finch PM, et al. Up-regulation of cutaneous α1—adrenoceptors in complex regional pain syndrome type I. Pain Med. 2014;15(11):1945–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Speck V, et al. Increased prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in CRPS. Eur J Pain. 2017;21(3):466–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Merskey. International association for the study of pain: pain terms: a current list with definitions and notes on usage. PAIN 1986;3:212–225

  14. Reimer M, et al. Sensitization of the nociceptive system in complex regional pain syndrome. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):e0154553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gierthmuhlen J, et al. Sensory signs in complex regional pain syndrome and peripheral nerve injury. Pain. 2012;153(4):765–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Enax-Krumova E, et al. Changes of the sensory abnormalities and cortical excitability in patients with complex regional pain syndrome of the upper extremity after 6 months of multimodal treatment. Pain Med. 2017;18(1):95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Latremoliere A, Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: a generator of pain hypersensitivity by central neural plasticity. J Pain. 2009;10(9):895–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Terkelsen AJ, et al. Bilateral hypersensitivity to capsaicin, thermal, and mechanical stimuli in unilateral complex regional pain syndrome. Anesthesiology. 2014;120(5):1225–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Oaklander AL, et al. Evidence of focal small-fiber axonal degeneration in complex regional pain syndrome-I (reflex sympathetic dystrophy). Pain. 2006;120(3):235–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hansson P, Backonja M, Bouhassira D. Usefulness and limitations of quantitative sensory testing: clinical and research application in neuropathic pain states. Pain. 2007;129(3):256–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brodal P. The central nervous system: structure and function. Oxford: Oxford university Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Young PA, Young PH, Tolbert DL. Basic clinical neuroscience. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schmelz M, et al. Encoding of burning pain from capsaicin-treated human skin in two categories of unmyelinated nerve fibres. Brain. 2000;123(Pt 3):560–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Weidner C, et al. Functional attributes discriminating mechano-insensitive and mechano-responsive C nociceptors in human skin. J Neurosci. 1999;19(22):10184–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pigott T. Advances in meta-analysis. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 1993;2(2):121–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Andrade C. Mean difference, standardized mean difference (SMD), and their use in meta-analysis: as simple as it gets. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020;81(5):11349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Peters JL, et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295(6):676–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Egger M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Higgins JP. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1. Cochrane Collab. 2008. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.ISO690.

  34. Schünemann HJ, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hultcrantz M, et al. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wan X, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Cochrane statistical methods group. Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2019;pp. 241–84.

  38. Bank PJM, et al. Force modulation deficits in complex regional pain syndrome: a potential role for impaired sense of force production. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom). 2014;18(7):1013–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. König S, et al. The serum protease network—one key to understand complex regional pain syndrome pathophysiology. Pain. 2019;160(6):1402–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. König S, Engl C, Bayer M, Escolano-Lozano F, Rittner H, Rebhorn C, & Birklein F. Substance P Serum degradation in complex regional pain syndrome–another piece of the puzzle? J Pain, 2022;23(3):501–07.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Becerra L, et al. Intrinsic brain networks normalize with treatment in pediatric complex regional pain syndrome. NeuroImage Clin. 2014;6:347–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Vartiainen NV, Kirveskari E, Forss N. Central processing of tactile and nociceptive stimuli in complex regional pain syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119(10):2380–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rasmussen VF, et al. Bilaterally reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density in unilateral CRPS-I. Pain Med (United States). 2018;19(10):2021–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kemler MA, et al. Thermal thresholds in complex regional pain syndrome type I: sensitivity and repeatability of the methods of limits and levels. Clin Neurophysiol. 2000;111(9):1561–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Seifert F, et al. Differential endogenous pain modulation in complex-regional pain syndrome. Brain. 2009;132(3):788–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sethna NF, et al. Cutaneous sensory abnormalities in children and adolescents with complex regional pain syndromes. Pain. 2007;131(1–2):153–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Huge V, et al. Interaction of hyperalgesia and sensory loss in complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS I). PLoS ONE. 2008;3(7):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Vatine JJ, Tsenter J, Nirel R. Experimental pressure pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome, type I (Reflex sympathetic dystrophy). Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;77(5):382–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Mainka T, et al. Comparison of muscle and joint pressure-pain thresholds in patients with complex regional pain syndrome and upper limb pain of other origin. Pain. 2014;155(3):591–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Van Rooijen DE, et al. Muscle hyperalgesia correlates with motor function in complex regional pain syndrome type 1. J Pain. 2013;14(5):446–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Van Rooijen DE, Marinus J, Van Hilten JJ. Muscle hyperalgesia is widespread in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2013;154(12):2745–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Palmer S, et al. Sensory function and pain experience in arthritis, complex regional pain syndrome, fibromyalgia syndrome, and pain-free volunteers a cross-sectional study. Clin J Pain. 2019;35(11):894–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kumowski N, et al. Unimpaired endogenous pain inhibition in the early phase of complex regional pain syndrome. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom). 2017;21(5):855–65.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Knudsen L, Finch PM, Drummond PD. The specificity and mechanisms of hemilateral sensory disturbances in complex regional pain syndrome. J Pain. 2011;12(9):985–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Edinger L, et al. Objective sensory evaluation of the spread of complex regional pain syndrome. Pain Physician. 2013;16(6):581–91.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wolanin MW. et al. Loss of surround inhibition and after sensation as diagnostic parameters of complex regional pain syndrome. Neurosci Med. 2012;3:344–53.

  57. Thimineur M, et al. Central nervous system abnormalities in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS): clinical and quantitative evidence of medullary dysfunction. Clin J Pain. 1998;14(3):256–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Weber M, et al. Facilitated neurogenic inflammation in complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2001;91(3):251–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Raj PP, et al. Painless electrodiagnostic current perception threshold and pain tolerance threshold values in CRPS subjects and healthy controls: a multicenter study. Pain Pract. 2001;1(1):53–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Meyer-Frießem CH, et al. Pain thresholds and intensities of CRPS type I and neuropathic pain in respect to sex. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom). 2020;24(6):1058–71.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Huge V, et al. Complex interaction of sensory and motor signs and symptoms in chronic CRPS. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(4):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sieweke N, et al. Patterns of hyperalgesia in complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 1999;80(1–2):171–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Drummond P, Finch P. The source of hemisensory disturbances in complex regional pain syndrome. Clin J Pain. 2021;37(2):79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Truffyn EE, et al. Sensory function and psychological factors in children with complex regional pain syndrome type 1. J Child Neurol. 2021;36:823–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Dietz C, et al. What is normal trauma healing and what is complex regional pain syndrome I? An analysis of clinical and experimental biomarkers. Pain. 2019;160(10):2278–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Üçeyler N, et al. Differential expression patterns of cytokines in complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2007;132(1–2):195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kolb L, et al. Cognitive correlates of “neglect-like syndrome” in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2012;153(5):1063–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wittayer M, et al. Correlates and importance of neglect-like symptoms in complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2018;159(5):978–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Maier C, et al. Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): Somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 patients with different neuropathic pain syndromes. Pain. 2010;150(3):439–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Munts AG, et al. Thermal hypesthesia in patients with complex regional pain syndrome related dystonia. J Neural Transm. 2011;118(4):599–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Habig K, et al. Low mechano-afferent fibers reduce thermal pain but not pain intensity in CRPS. BMC Neurol. 2021;21(1):272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Gossrau G, et al. C-tactile touch perception in patients with chronic pain disorders. Pain Reports. 2021;6(2):e941–e941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Eberle T, et al. Warm and cold complex regional pain syndromes: differences beyond skin temperature? Neurology. 2009;72(6):505–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Ohmichi Y, et al. Physical disuse contributes to widespread chronic mechanical hyperalgesia, tactile allodynia, and cold allodynia through neurogenic inflammation and spino-parabrachio-amygdaloid pathway activation. Pain. 2020;161(8):1808–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Drummond E, et al. Topical prazosin attenuates sensitivity to tactile stimuli in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. European journal of pain (London, England), 2015;20:926–35.

  76. Vaneker M, et al. Patients initially diagnosed as ‘warm’ or ‘cold’ CRPS 1 show differences in central sensory processing some eight years after diagnosis: a quantitative sensory testing study. Pain. 2005;115(1):204–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Magerl W, et al. Reference data for quantitative sensory testing (QST): refined stratification for age and a novel method for statistical comparison of group data. Pain. 2010;151(3):598–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Maihöfner C, et al. Brain processing during mechanical hyperalgesia in complex regional pain syndrome: a functional MRI study. Pain. 2005;114(1):93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Geha PY, et al. The brain in chronic CRPS pain: abnormal gray-white matter interactions in emotional and autonomic regions. Neuron. 2008;60(4):570–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Shokouhi M, et al. Structural and functional brain changes at early and late stages of complex regional pain syndrome. J Pain. 2018;19(2):146–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lenz M, et al. Bilateral somatosensory cortex disinhibition in complex regional pain syndrome type I. Neurology. 2011;77(11):1096.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Bruehl S. An update on the pathophysiology of complex regional pain syndrome. Anesthesiology. 2010;113(3):713–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rommel O, et al. Quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiological and psychological examination in patients with complex regional pain syndrome and hemisensory deficits. Pain. 2001;93(3):279–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Drummond P, et al. Hemisensory disturbances in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2018;159(9):1824–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ferreira SH, Lorenzetti BB, Poole S. Bradykinin initiates cytokine-mediated inflammatory hyperalgesia. Br J Pharmacol. 1993;110(3):1227–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Birklein F, et al. Complex regional pain syndrome—phenotypic characteristics and potential biomarkers. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14(5):272–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Albrecht PJ, et al. Pathologic alterations of cutaneous innervation and vasculature in affected limbs from patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2006;120(3):244–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Sobeeh MG, Ghozy S, Elshazli RM, Landry M. Pain mechanisms in carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative sensory testing outcomes. Pain. 2022;163(10):e1054–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Tampin B, et al. Quantitative sensory testing somatosensory profiles in patients with cervical radiculopathy are distinct from those in patients with nonspecific neck-arm pain. Pain. 2012;153(12):2403–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Tampin B, et al. Association of quantitative sensory testing parameters with clinical outcome in patients with lumbar radiculopathy undergoing microdiscectomy. Eur J Pain. 2020;24(7):1377–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Tampin B, Vollert J, Schmid AB. Sensory profiles are comparable in patients with distal and proximal entrapment neuropathies, while the pain experience differs. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(11):1899–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Nahman-Averbuch H, et al. Quantitative sensory testing in patients with migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2018;159(7):1202–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Enax-Krumova E, et al. Contralateral sensory and pain perception changes in patients with unilateral neuropathy. Neurology. 2021;97(4): e389.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Meng H, Dai J, Li Y. Quantitative sensory testing in patients with the muscle pain subtype of temporomandibular disorder: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(12):6547–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Suokas AK, et al. Quantitative sensory testing in painful osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2012;20(10):1075–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Malfliet A, et al. Lack of evidence for central sensitization in idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain: a systematic review. Pain Physician. 2015;18(3):223–36.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Blumenstiel K, et al. Quantitative sensory testing profiles in chronic back pain are distinct from those in fibromyalgia. Clin J Pain. 2011;27(8):682–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Fitzcharles MA, et al. Nociplastic pain: towards an understanding of prevalent pain conditions. Lancet. 2021;397(10289):2098–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Kosek E, et al. Do we need a third mechanistic descriptor for chronic pain states? Pain. 2016;157(7):1382–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Finnerup NB, et al. Neuropathic pain: an updated grading system for research and clinical practice. Pain. 2016;157(8):1599–606.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Treede RD, et al. Neuropathic pain: redefinition and a grading system for clinical and research purposes. Neurology. 2008;70(18):1630–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Drummond P, Finch P. pupillary reflexes in complex regional pain syndrome: asymmetry to arousal stimuli suggests an ipsilateral locus coeruleus deficit. J Pain. 2022;23(1):131–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. de Klaver MJ, et al. Hyperacusis in patients with complex regional pain syndrome related dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78(12):1310–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Nijs J, et al. Nociplastic pain criteria or recognition of central sensitization? pain phenotyping in the past, present and future. J Clin Med. 2021;10(15):3203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Kennedy DL, et al. Responsiveness of quantitative sensory testing-derived sensory phenotype to disease-modifying intervention in patients with entrapment neuropathy: a longitudinal study. Pain. 2021;162(12):2881–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Matesanz L, et al. Somatosensory and psychological phenotypes associated with neuropathic pain in entrapment neuropathy. Pain. 2021;162(4):1211–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Szikszay TM, Adamczyk WM, Luedtke K. The Magnitude of offset analgesia as a measure of endogenous pain modulation in healthy participants and patients with chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain. 2019;35(2):189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Mesaroli G, et al. Clinical features of pediatric complex regional pain syndrome: a 5-year retrospective chart review. Clin J Pain. 2019;35(12):933–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Stanton-Hicks M, et al. Reflex sympathetic dystrophy: changing concepts and taxonomy. Pain. 1995;63(1):127–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Dimova V, et al. Clinical phenotypes and classification algorithm for complex regional pain syndrome. Neurology. 2020;94(4):e357–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This is the time to acknowledge my mom who is so brilliant, thanks for everything.

Funding

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). This study is self-funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Therapy for Musculoskeletal Disorders and its Surgeries, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

    Mohamed Gomaa Sobeeh, Karima Abdelaty Hassan, Enas Fawzy Youssef, Nadia Abdelazim Fayaz & Maha Mostafa Mohammed

  2. Faculty of Physical Therapy, Sinai University, Ismailia, Egypt

    Mohamed Gomaa Sobeeh

  3. CINTESIS.UA@RISE, School of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Anabela Gonçalves da Silva

Authors
  1. Mohamed Gomaa Sobeeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karima Abdelaty Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anabela Gonçalves da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Enas Fawzy Youssef
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nadia Abdelazim Fayaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maha Mostafa Mohammed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have designed the project. MS and KH participated mainly in the risk of bias assessment, while MS and AS participated mainly in data extraction. All authors participated in writing and revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Gomaa Sobeeh.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

. Fig. S1 Pooled results of cold detection threshold (CDT) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 2

. Fig. S2 Funnel plot of cold detection threshold of the affected side.

Additional file 3

. Fig. S3 Pooled results of cold detection threshold (CDT) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 4

. Fig. S4 Funnel plot of cold detection threshold of the remote areas.

Additional file 5.

Fig. S5 Pooled results of warm detection threshold (WDT) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 6

. Fig. S6 Funnel plot of warm detection threshold of the affected side.

Additional file 7

. Fig. S7 Pooled results of warm detection threshold (WDT) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 8.

Fig. S8 Funnel plot of warm detection threshold of the remote areas.

Additional file 9

. Fig. S9 Pooled results of thermal sensory limen (TSL) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 10

. Fig. S10 Pooled results of thermal sensory limen (TSL) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 11

. Fig. S11 Pooled results of mechanical detection threshold (MDT) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 12

. Fig. S12 Pooled results of mechanical detection threshold (MDT) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 13

. Fig. S13 Pooled results of vibration detection threshold (VDT) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 14

. Fig. S14 Pooled results of vibration detection threshold (VDT) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 15

. Fig. S15 Pooled results of cold pain threshold (CPT) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 16.

Fig. S16 Funnel plot of cold pain threshold of the affected side.

Additional file 17

. Fig. S17 Pooled results of cold pain threshold (CPT) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 18

. Fig. S18 Funnel plot of cold pain threshold of the remote areas.

Additional file 19.

Fig. S19 Pooled results of heat pain threshold (HPT) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 20

. Fig. S20 Funnel plot of heat pain threshold of the affected side.

Additional file 21

. Fig. S21 Pooled results of heat pain threshold (HPT) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 22

. Fig. S22 Funnel plot of heat pain threshold of the remote areas.

Additional file 23

. Fig. S23 Pooled results of mechanical pain threshold (MPT) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 24

. Fig. S24 Pooled results of mechanical pain threshold (MPT) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 25

. Fig. S25 Pooled results of pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the affected area (deep tissue PPT). SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 26

. Fig. S26 Funnel plot of pressure pain threshold of the affected side.

Additional file 27

. Fig. S27 Pooled results of pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the remote areas (deep tissue PPT). SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 28

. Fig. S28 Funnel plot of pressure pain threshold of the remote areas.

Additional file 29

. Fig. S29 Pooled results of pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the affected area (joint PPT). SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 30

. Fig. S30 Pooled results of pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the remote areas (joint PPT). SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 31

. Fig. S31 Pooled results of mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 32

. Fig. S32 Pooled results of mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 33

. Fig. S33 Pooled results of wind-up ratio (WUR) of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 34

. Fig. S34 Pooled results of wind-up ratio (WUR) of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 35

. Fig. S35 Pooled results of pain ratings after noxious stimulus of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 36

. Fig. S36 Pooled results of pain ratings after noxious stimulus of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 37

. Fig. S37 Pooled results of area after induced pinprick hyperalgesia of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 38

. Fig. S38 Pooled results of pleasantness level of C-tactile perception of the affected area. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 39

. Fig. S39 Pooled results of pleasantness level of C-tactile perception of the remote areas. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 40

. Fig. S40 Pooled results of cold detection threshold (CDT) of the affected area of children and adolescent with CRPS. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 41

. Fig. S41 Pooled results of cold detection threshold (CDT) of the contralateral side of children and adolescent with CRPS. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 42.

Fig. S42 Pooled results of warm detection threshold (WDT) of the affected area of children and adolescent with CRPS. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 43

. Fig. S43 Pooled results of warm detection threshold (WDT) of the contralateral side of children and adolescent with CRPS. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 44

. Fig. S44 Pooled results of cold pain threshold (CPT) of the affected area of children and adolescent with CRPS. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 45

. Fig. S45 Pooled results of cold pain threshold (CPT) of the contralateral side of children and adolescent with CRPS. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Additional file 46

. Fig. S46 Pooled results of heat pain threshold (HPT) of the affected area of children and adolescent with CRPS. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference

Additional file 47

. Fig. S47 Pooled results of heat pain threshold (HPT) of the contralateral side of children and adolescent with CRPS. SD: standard deviation, CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome, and Std Mean Difference: standardized mean difference.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sobeeh, M.G., Hassan, K.A., da Silva, A.G. et al. Pain mechanisms in complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative sensory testing outcomes. J Orthop Surg Res 18, 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03461-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03461-2

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X