Evidence Hub

Cut-Off Values Able to Identify Migraine Patients With Increased Pressure-Pain Sensitivity Independent of the Migraine Cycle Through a Single Assessment: A Secondary Analysis of a Multicentre, Cross-Sectional, Observational Study

M. Castaldo, L. Arendt-Nielsen, M. Ponzano, F. Bovis, P. Torelli, C. Finocchi, Stefano Di Antonio

European Journal of Pain, 2025

4 citations

Abstract

AIM: Identify values that could predict the presence of increased pressure-pain sensitivity independent of the migraine cycle through a single assessment.

METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a previous study in which 198 episodic and chronic migraine patients were assessed during all phases of the migraine cycle. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was assessed over the temporalis, cervical spine, hand, and leg. Migraine patients were divided into two sub-groups: patients with increased pressure-pain sensitivity (IPS) and with No IPS (No-IPS). A Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection decision tree analysis was used to identify predictors to be included in the IPS or NoIPS group. To assess the internal validity of the model, a tenfold cross-validation was applied.

RESULTS: 161 (81%) patients were included in the IPS group, while 37 (19%) in the NoIPS group. Migraine patients with: (1) Temporalis PPT ≤ 130 kPa; (2) Temporalis PPT > 130 kPa and ≤ 197.5 kPa and hand PPT ≤ 347.33 kPa; (3) Temporalis PPT > 197.5 kPa and hand PPT ≤ 315 kPa; were correctly included in the IPS group with a sensitivity of 96%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 96%, and a negative predictive value of 81%. The accuracy of the model and the cross-validation analysis were respectively 93% and 92%.

CONCLUSION: The high internal validity suggests that our model could precisely predict the presence of IPS independently by the phase in which the assessment occurred. Trigeminal and hand…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free