Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Pain profiling in migraine: a systematic review of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST), Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM), and Corneal Confocal Microscopy (CCM)

The Journal of Headache and Pain volume 25, Article number: 224 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this systematic review is to identify pain profiling parameters that are reliably different between patients with migraine and healthy controls, using Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) including Temporal Summation (TS), Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM), and Corneal Confocal Microscopy (CCM).

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted (up to 23 May 2024). The quality of the research was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies.

Results

Twenty-eight studies were included after screening. The QST studies indicate that migraine patients exhibit lower pressure pain thresholds (PPT), particularly in the trigeminal region. A previous meta-analysis reported lower heat pain thresholds (HPT). CPM studies suggest a (mild) inhibitory or absent response in migraine patients, not different from controls. High-frequency and chronic migraine patients may exhibit a facilitatory CPM response. With repeated executions of CPM, migraine patients display a diminishing CPM response, a phenomenon not observed in control subjects. CCM investigations in migraine patients revealed conflicting outcomes, likely as a result of small sample sizes and limited characterization of migraine features.

Conclusion

Pain profiling migraine patients varies due to sensory modality, applied methods, anatomical sites, and migraine features. Understanding pain profiling offers insights into migraine pathophysiology, requiring careful selection of parameters and differentiation among migraine subtypes.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Migraine is a prevalent and intricate neurological condition, marked by recurring, incapacitating headache episodes accompanied by symptoms such as nausea, occasional vomiting, and increased sensitivity to light and sound [21]. Additionally, about one-third of individuals with migraine experiences temporary neurological disturbances, often visual in nature, known as migraine auras [21]. In essence, migraine represents a multifaceted pain disorder. While the majority of patients has the episodic form of migraine (EM), approximately 3% of them convert annually from EM to chronic migraine (CM), characterized by experiencing 15 or more headache days per month, of which at least 8 are migraine days—a transition often referred to as migraine chronification [2]. This shift is significantly influenced by the repeated and prolonged use of acute migraine medications, making it a major risk factor for migraine chronification [4, 21]. Consequently, the vast majority of individuals with CM become dependent on acute medication to manage their condition. The mechanism of migraine chronification remains uncertain, and while there is substantial knowledge, not all aspects are fully understood.

The endogenous pain modulatory system consists of both inhibitory and facilitatory processes. Disruption of this modulatory system not only increases the likelihood of experiencing pain but also intensifies susceptibility to both short-term and long-term pain. This can be further explored by examining key patient-related factors that are known to influence the development of chronic pain, such as the endogenous pain inhibitory system and the facilitation system [37]. The imbalance between these inhibitory and facilitatory pain mechanisms can vary for different types of pain conditions. In many chronic pain disorders, either heightened pain facilitation (referred to as central sensitization) or a deficiency in pain inhibition is proposed as the underlying mechanism. The pain modulatory system can be quantified by experimental techniques, allowing the construction of sensory profiles or subgroups.

Central sensitization has been suggested to be an important mechanism in migraine chronification. It is presumed to occur in second and third order neurons sequentially, resulting in an analogous spatial distribution of cutaneous allodynia with cephalic and extracephalic symptoms during migraine attacks [7]. Cutaneous allodynia may have a predictive value for treatment response in chronic migraine [47]. Managing chronic migraine can be challenging and individuals suffering from it often resort to frequent use of pain-relieving medications. Overuse of acute treatments leads to complex mechanisms involving peripheral and central factors, potentially resulting in central sensitization, increased neuronal excitability, and the upregulation of pain-related pathways [4]. Therefore, it is important to understand involvement of the pain modulatory system in migraine.

Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) is a method to assess somatosensory function by applying controlled stimuli [34]. Through this approach, it becomes possible to determine the detection and pain thresholds for various stimuli such as heat, cold, pressure, vibration and mechanical inputs [48]. Central sensitization, which involves the pain facilitatory system, can be assessed using the temporal summation (TS) test. This test evaluates the amplification of pain intensity in response to a repeated pain stimulus [48]. In patients with chronic pain syndromes, such as fibromyalgia, chronic lower back pain and neuropathic pain syndromes, an increase in TS response has been reported [29, 36, 38, 58].

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) tests are utilized to evaluate the endogenous pain inhibitory system [61]. These tests examine the suppression of a painful stimulus (test stimulus) via the administration of a secondary painful stimulus (conditioning stimulus) at a remote area. In patients with chronic pain syndromes, such as temporomandibular disorder, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome and neuropathic pain syndromes, a decrease or complete loss in CPM response is seen [25, 37, 38, 51]. For migraine CPM response has been extensively explored.

Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) is used to quantify the corneal nerve plexus. This subepithelial, densely intensified and highly dynamic plexus comprises small nerve fibers that are the distal ends of the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve. Abnormalities in corneal nerve parameters have been observed in patients with peripheral neuropathies [6, 46]. The corneal nerve densities has been shown to change in response to treatment for other disorders [56, 59]. Given the significant involvement of the trigeminovascular system in the pathophysiology of migraine, the quantification of this plexus may hold relevance for migraine [2]. CCM assesses the small nerve fibers, and might provide valuable insights into the role of these fibers in pain perception, making this a potentially useful addition to pain profiling.

This systematic review aims to summarize current findings on pain profiles in migraine, with a specific focus on QST, CPM, and CCM tests. It aims to encapsulate existing knowledge about sensory processing and pain modulation in migraine patients. The insights may aid researchers and healthcare professionals in selecting appropriate pain profiling parameters to distinguish migraine patients from healthy individuals and obtain more insights in pain mechanisms for migraine. Additionally, they can guide the investigation of these parameters during transitions between episodic and chronic migraine (with medication overuse) and vice versa.

Methods

Search strategy and data sources

This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA checklist [32]. To investigate the literature we made a search on the QST, TS, CPM and CCM tests in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science & the Cochrane Library. Previously, a systematic review for QST in patients with migraine was done by Nahman-Averbuch et al. in 2018 [34]. Their literary search was done for papers until January 2017. Therefore, for this review, we limited the search for papers on QST after January 2017 to bring a renewed perspective of more recent QST findings. For the other tests there was no time limit on the search. The total search was done up to 23 May 2024, using the key words (“migraine” OR “migraine disorders”) AND (“quantitative sensory testing” OR “temporal summation” OR “pain modulation” OR “conditioned pain modulation” OR “migraine modulation” OR “headache modulation” OR “diffuse noxious inhibitory control” OR “corneal confocal microscopy” OR “in vivo confocal microscopy”).

Studies were divided based on the pain tests used: QST, CPM or CCM. Studies were required to: (1) have full text availability; (2) be in English; (3) involve only human subjects; (4) present case–control differences; (5) enroll at least 1 migraine patient group that was not mixed with patients with other headache conditions (with an exception for medication overuse headache (MOH)); (6) use at least one psychophysical measure; (7) be published before 23 May 2024. Information specialists of the Walaeus library of Leiden University Medical Center assisted in retrieving full text manuscripts not available to the Leiden University Medical Center library. Articles were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: (1) were case reports, meeting abstracts, editorials, commentaries, or articles focusing on a pediatric population (age < 18 years), or contained incomplete information; (2) did not present original data; (3) lacked baseline data; (4) did not include a comparison with a control group for QST or CCM.

FCvW and GMT/MvV independently reviewed all abstracts and full text papers for inclusion using the above criteria. Agreement between the reviewers on study selection was 93.5%. Disagreement was resolved by discussion. Data were extracted by two reviewers (FCvW/GMT for QST and CPM, FCvW/MvV for CCM) using a form that was developed to capture information on study groups including: (1) total subjects in migraine and control groups; (2) number of males and females; (3) mean age and SD; (4) migraine type; (5) migraine characteristics if provided; (6) study design (measure, modality, and location of tests); (7) results; (8) other comments.

Risk of bias

The quality of the research was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies [54]. The NOS is comprised of three domains which contribute to the overall quality score: selection of groups; comparability; and outcome assessment. A numerical score (0–9) was assigned evaluating these domains. A higher NOS score signifies superior methodological quality and reduced bias risk, facilitating the assessment and comparison of research findings across various studies [54].

Risk of bias was assessed by evaluating the selection bias, performance bias and confounding bias in 10 subcategories. The subcategories were: (1) small sample size (n < 20); (2) used a self-reported measure of pain; (3) used self-diagnosed migraine; (4) the sample included a subset of subjects with possible medication overuse headache (MOH) (most often this is the case for CM or high-frequency migraine); (5) absence of verified acute medication days/month, headache days/month or migraine days/month; (6) patient clinical characteristics are incomplete; (7) absence of specified possible comorbidities for the tests; (8) absence of specified when the measurements were done in relation to the migraine phase; (9) difference in the sex distribution; and (10) other. The subcategories were classied as high, low or unclear risk according to the Cochrane risk of bias [22]. The Robvis tool was used to visualize the risk-of-bias assessment [31].

Data reporting

For studies presenting identical datasets we included only one publication as a representative. For studies reporting several repetitions of measurements, the baseline data and data after intervention were assessed, but only baseline data were included. Some studies reported data on several related, but distinct, outcomes in the same participants (e.g., different stimulus locations or stimulus paradigms in the same subjects). To determine whether migraine was associated with global or local differences in sensitivity, data were categorized by QST location of and/or stimuli in the trigeminal nerve region (V1, V2 and V3), neck region, head region or more distal regions (forearm, hand and lower limbs).

Results

The search provided 598 possible articles after removal of duplicates (23-May-2024). After the first screening, 46 articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 28 papers were included in this review: QST (n = 12), CPM (n = 13) and CCM (n = 5). The flowchart is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the systematic literary screening. The search was performed on 23 May 2024. Exclusion criteria were:1) no full text availability; 2) not in English; 3) not in human study; 4) case report, meeting abstracts, editorials, commentaries, articles with a pediatric population (age < 18) or articles with incomplete information; 5) does not present own data with a prospective design; 6) did not enroll at least 1 migraine patient group that was not mixed with patients with other headache conditions (excluding MOH); 7) does not use 1 psychophysical measure (and QST published before January 2017); and 8) no baseline data available for all, or did not include a comparison with a control group for QST or CCM. QST = Quantitative Sensory Testing; CPM = Conditioned Pain Modulation; CCM = Corneal Confocal Microscopy

Full size image

Quantitative sensory testing (QST)

For QST studies before January 2017 we refer to Nahman-Averbuch et al. in 2018 [34]. Twelve studies published after January 2017 contained original QST data of migraine patients compared to a non-migraine control group, shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Information on the studies on quantitative sensory testing (QST) in patients with migraine and controls
Full size table

Sensory detection thresholds

For the sensory detection thresholds, most studies found no differences for any stimulus (mechanical, heat, cold, tactile, prick and two prick determination) in any region (trigeminal nerve region, neck and distal region) in migraine patients compared to healthy controls [30, 39, 55]. Only one recent study reported a higher mechanical detection threshold (MDT) in the trigeminal nerve regions for female migraine patients compared to controls [5].

Pain detection thresholds

The pressure pain detection (PPT) was reported to be lower for migraine patients. Lower PPT was reported in CM compared to controls in trigeminal nerve regions and distal regions [16]. Similarly, lower PPT was reported for female migraine patients compared to controls in trigeminal nerve and distal regions [5]. Another study found a lower PPT in trigeminal nerve regions and neck in migraine patients compared to healthy controls, however, no differences were found in the distal region and on the head [30]. In contrast, a third study found lower PPT in CM compared to healthy controls in the distal region and no difference in PPT in the trigeminal nerve area [41]. Furthermore, a large study found a reduced PPT in the neck region for low-frequency EM in the preictal and postictal phase and a reduced PPT in the neck and trigeminal nerve region for low-frequency EM in the interictal phase compared to healthy controls. This study also reported a reduced PPT in the neck and trigeminal nerve region for high-frequency EM in the preictal and postictal phase compared to healthy controls. The PPT was also reduced in the neck and trigeminal nerve region for high-frequency EM and CM in the ictal phase compared to healthy controls [15].

Although the mechanical pain detection threshold (MPT) seemed higher in EM compared to controls in trigeminal nerve regions and MPT was reported to be higher in EM compared to CM in the trigeminal nerve area and distal region in a large study, this was not replicated in small studies [40]. These small studies found no difference in MPT in migraine patients compared to controls in the trigeminal nerve area or a distal region [20, 41, 55].

The heat pain threshold (HPT) was reported to be lower in CM compared to controls in the trigeminal nerve area and in the distal region [41]. However, this was not replicated in other studies where no difference was found in HPT between migraine patients and controls in the trigeminal area and distal region [20, 40, 55]. The cold pain detection threshold (CPT) was reported to be higher in CM compared to controls in the trigeminal nerve area and in the distal region [41], but another study reported no difference in CPT for migraine versus controls in these areas [40].

Pain suprathreshold

For the suprathreshold, the heat pain that gave a NRS of 60 out of 100 was reported as the heat pain suprathreshold (HPS). One study reported the HPS of EM patients outside a migraine attack, no difference was found compared with healthy controls [55].

Temporal summation (TS)

One study reported higher TS values in the distal region in individuals with high-frequency EM compared to those with low-frequency EM and healthy controls [10]. Another study found no difference in TS between EM and controls in the distal region [11]. No differences in TS in the trigeminal nerve area or neck region in any migraine phase of low-frequency EM patients were found compared to healthy controls, however higher TS was reported for high-frequency EM and CM in the ictal phase compared to healthy controls [15]. Furthermore, higher TS was seen in CM compared to healthy controls in trigeminal nerve region and distal region [16]. A small study with pinprick TS failed to replicate differences in TS between EM and controls in the trigeminal nerve area and distal region [1]. Another study in female migraine patients reported no difference in TS compared to controls in the trigeminal nerve area and distal region [5].

Slowly repeated evoked pain (SREP)

For SREP, the changes in pain perception were assessed in response to repeated nociceptive stimuli as a measurement for central sensitization. No overall difference between EM and healthy controls was found for SREP. Pain intensity ratings increased progressively in EM but not in healthy controls [11].

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM)

Thirteen studies were identified that described original CPM data of migraine patients, shown in Table 2. The test stimulus (ts) consisted of heat, pressure or electrical stimuli and the conditioned stimulus (cs) consisted of cold, heat, capsaicin and ischemic stimuli. One study included an attention task as conditioned stimulus [14]. No consistent differences were observed between different locations of test and conditioned stimulus, between contralateral and ipsilateral CPM protocols and the different stimuli. An inhibitory CPM response refers to increased pain inhibition, where the body reduces pain perception in response to a conditioning stimulus. In contrast, a facilitatory CPM response involves decreased pain inhibition, meaning the conditioning stimulus leads to heightened or maintained pain sensitivity instead of reducing it.

Table 2 Information on the studies on conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) in patients with migraine and controls
Full size table

The majority of studies with adequate numbers of participants suggested a (mild) inhibitory (and some absence of response) in migraine patients, with no difference between migraine subtypes (MA and MO) [18], and no difference compared to the inhibitory response found in controls [26, 33, 57]. However, when CPM was executed multiple times, migraine patients showed a waning of CPM response, which was not found in controls [33]. One study in female migraine patient reported a less efficient CPM response compared to control in the V1 region 30 s after cs application, however, no differences were found after 90 s or in the V3 area or distal region [5].

In contrast, a facilitatory CPM response was suggested in high-frequency EM patients (n = 24) versus an inhibitory CPM response in controls (n = 20) [49], which was also suggested in a small study for CM (n = 9) versus absence of response for EM (n = 11) and an inhibitory CPM for healthy controls (n = 14) [13]. This group also conducted the CPM paradigm with an attention task as a conditioned stimulus, and found an absence of CPM response in migraine patients [14]. They also performed the CPM test with the test and conditioned stimulus on the same location in the trigeminal nerve region which resulted in an inhibitory CPM response for migraine patients [12]. A study that investigated the CPM response in CM patients with MOH (n = 31) that underwent two months of withdrawal of acute pain medication and found these patients showed an absent of CPM response before withdrawal. Shortly (8–10 days) after the withdrawal, an inhibitory response was seen, similar to the EM patients (n = 28) and healthy controls (n = 23). Notably, this study excluded all CM patients that did not improve to episodic migraine, so no responder versus non-responder analysis was performed [45]. In contrast to the above, another short “medication overuse withdrawal” study investigated CM with MOH patients and suggested an inhibitory response in CM with MOH before and an absence of CPM response after withdrawal. However, the design of this study applied a protocol that consisted of a short 5 day hospitalization (ice packs and hydroxyzine 25 mg/day as rescue treatment) and after discharge the patients could start using triptans again [20]. This protocol does not align with the recommended MOH withdrawal treatment [4]. The CPM response was also measured at a short term with three weeks after hospitalization [20].

We want to separately mention a CPM study on the blink reflex: patients with a migraine history (n = 23) showed an inhibitory CPM response for a painful test stimulus, however for the blink reflex test stimulus migraine patients showed an absence of CPM response. Healthy controls (n = 32) showed an inhibitory CPM response for both [60].

A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial on duloxetine found an inhibitory CPM response for migraine patients (n = 55) at baseline, but no control group was included [27].

Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM)

Only five studies, most of them with small sample sizes, could be included and described original CCM data of migraine patients, as shown in Table 3. All studies reported the output measurements corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL), and corneal nerve branch density (CNBD). Two small studies reported the nerve tortuosity in CM [24] and EM patients [52]. Three studies reported the total branch density (CTBD), total nerve fiber area (CNFA) and corneal nerve fiber width (CNFW), where one reported on CM and EM compared to controls [19], one reported EM patients compared to controls [42] and another reported CM with and without ictal photophobia [53]. This latter study found no differences between CM without photophobia compared to controls [53]. Some differences were found for those with photophobia but it was not specified to which group these results were compared. Therefore, the results for migraine with photophobia were not considered [53].

Table 3 Information on the studies on Corneal Confocal Microscopy (CCM) in patients with migraine and controls
Full size table

Contrasting results were found for the CNFD in migraine compared to controls. A study in CM and a large study in EM (MA and MO) and CM both reported lower CNFD in migraine patients compared to controls [19, 24]. No differences were found for EM or CM without photophobia compared to controls [42, 52, 53]. The CNFL was found to be shorter in EM (MA and MO) and CM patients compared to controls in one study [19]. In contrast, a small study suggested CNFL to be larger in EM compared to controls [52], and other studies did not find a significant difference [24, 42, 53]. Similarly, conflicting results were reported for the CNBD, with lower density in the EM (MA and MO) and CM study [19], higher density in a small EM study [52] and the other studies reported no difference [24, 42, 53].

The tortuosity was reported to be increased in EM patients compared to controls, but no significant difference was found for CM patients [24, 52]. The CTBD and CNFA was reported to be lower in EM (MO and MA) and CM patients compared to controls by one study [19]. However, this was not replicated in CM without photophobia or EM by other studies [42, 53]. The total nerve width (CTFW) was not found to be different from controls in any study [19, 42, 53]. For EM patients the fractal dimension was not found to be different between EM and controls [42]. In one study lower CNFD and CNFA was found in EM patients compared to controls and it was suggested that a presence of neuroinflammation in the cornea of migraine patients might affect the peripheral trigeminal system [42].

NOS quality

The mean NOS quality score of the included studies was 5.82 ± 1.70 (mean ± SD). The QST papers had a mean score of 6.92 ± 1.56, the CPM papers scored a 5.62 ± 1.19 on average and the CCM papers had an NOS score of 4.00 ± 1.00.

Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias assessment is shown in Fig. 2. Eleven studies (39.3%) included a small sample size. The reporting of acute medication days/month (MAMD) was missing or unclear for 25 studies (89.3%). This value is necessary for the diagnosis of MOH. The specification whether the study population included patients with MOH was missing or unclear in 21 studies (75.0%). The reporting of headache or migraine days/month (MHD/MMD) was missing or unclear (because it was defined as attacks per month) for 13 studies (46.4%). Eleven studies (39.3%) did not report when the measurements were performed in relation to the migraine phase. Four studies (14.3%) did not specify the handling or inclusion of possible comorbidities. Moreover, the studies containing CCM data had very limited description of the migraine population and the control group and, therefore, have a higher risk of bias. The studies report all results including when no differences were found. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for these studies moderate, varying from weak to good between studies. The risk of bias was taken into account in the interpretation of the reported results.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of Bias assessment from included studies. A) Traffic light plot per study with 1 = small sample size, 2 = self-reported measure of pain, 3 = self-diagnosed migraine, 4 = sample included possible medication overuse headache (MOH), 5 = no medication days/month reported, 6 = no headache or migraine days/month reported, 7 = incomplete patient characteristics, 8 = possible comorbidities not specified, 9 = migraine phase not specified and 10 = other bias. (B) Summary plot of risk of bias per subcategory. The Robvis tool was used to visualize the risk of bias assessment [31].

Full size image

Discussion

Although pain profiling tests have been widely used by investigators in patients with migraine for many years, there is a wide methodological variety in these tests leading to conflicting results and difficulty in understanding underlying mechanisms. Understanding the current state of pain profiling research in migraine is essential to identify informative tests to distinguish between migraine patients and healthy individuals. This review highlights findings and knowledge gaps in our understanding of pain processing in migraine.

Quantitative sensory testing (QST)

The quantitative sensory testing (QST) studies indicate that migraine patients exhibit lower pressure pain threshold (PPT) in the trigeminal region or in distal areas. The mechanical pain detection (MPT) and heat and cold pain threshold (HPT and CPT) showed conflicting results. The previous systematic review and metanalysis conducted in 2018 reported similar results regarding the PPT. Importantly, the meta-analysis reported a lowered HPT and higher pain ratings to electrical and cold suprathreshold stimulations for migraine patients and no differences for other QST paradigms such as electrical detection thresholds, cold and mechanical [34].

The temporal summation (TS) test has been suggested to be useful to assess central sensitization in chronic pain syndromes, where an increased TS response has been observed as a result of an increased ascending pain facilitation pathway. However, migraine studies reported discordant findings on TS differences between migraine patients and controls, with some indicating higher TS in HF-EM and CM patients compared to controls, while others showed no significant differences. In addition, the SREP, another measure for central sensitization, has only been conducted by the same research group and has yet to be replicated elsewhere. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate these findings and draw definitive conclusions.

It has been suggested to use cut-off values for the application of QST for a definition of heightened and lowered sensitivity. These cut-off values can be based on previous literature and receptor characteristics [3]. This methodology may be helpful in the standardization of QST measurements keeping in mind that alterations in nociceptive processing of patients with migraine seem to be modality, measure, and location specific, and may differ between EM and CM patients.

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM)

The majority of studies with adequate numbers of participants suggested a (mild) inhibitory or absence of response in (episodic) migraine patients, with no difference between those with and without aura, and no difference with the response compared to controls. However, migraine patients showed a waning of CPM response, which was not found in controls. In contrast, a facilitatory CPM response was suggested in HF-EM patients and those with CM. One study found an absence of CPM response in CM patients with MOH that reverted to an inhibitory response after short withdrawal time, but unfortunately no comparison between responders and non-responders after withdrawal therapy was made.

CPM is well-suited for assessing inhibitory pain pathways because it focuses on detecting the absence of inhibitory responses, which indicates dysfunction in pain inhibitory modulation [23]. For migraine, it seems that this dysfunction of the pain system is correlated to the frequency of migraine attacks. However, when it comes to CM, the available data are limited [45]. Furthermore, most studies performed the CPM tests with both test and conditioned stimulus in a distal region. Only three studies performed the conditioned stimulus in a distal area and the test stimulus in the trigeminal region, which is a special region of interests for migraine pathophysiology. Two of these studies had either low number of participants or high risk of bias [13, 60]. The other study reported conflicting results for the V1 and V3 area [5]. We recommend further research to determine CPM in the trigeminal region and whether CPM functions differently for CM (+/- MOH) compared to EM, and to investigate the transition from CM to EM.

Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM)

The CCM studies showed conflicting results probably due to small sample size and limited phenotyping of migraine characteristics. Therefore, more studies are needed to be able to confirm any conclusions with larger sample sizes and clear migraine characteristics (e.g. monthly migraine/headache/medication days). One study aimed to asses ictal photophobia based on the first 7 questions of an 8-part photophobia questionnaire [8, 53]. One might speculate that the Leiden Visual Sensitivity Scale (L-VISS), a validated 9-item questionnaire can provide more insight into visual hypersensitivity as the L-VISS scores differ not only between migraine patients versus controls, but also between MO versus MA patients, CM versus EM and ictal versus interictal period [44]. Furthermore, the L-VISS questionnaire employs a linear scale, enabling straightforward comparisons across various groups, in contrast to other instruments that utilize binary or qualitative scales. Therefore, future research in CCM in relation to hypersensitivity might utilize the L-VISS questionnaire within the migraine population.

Treatment effect

Psychophysical tests can be employed to evaluate treatment effects in migraine. By recording baseline and post-treatment measurements, the treatment’s impact on the pain system can be assessed. Furthermore, these tests might be useful in predicting treatment response; however, large study populations and replication of results are needed before this can be applied in clinical settings.

Studies have predominantly utilized QST tests to study treatment effects. Multiple studies reported no changes in QST measurement after treatments [17, 27, 28]. A large study in CM patients receiving flunarizine showed that responders were comparable to healthy controls whereas non-responders reported significant pain hypersensitivity [41]. A study in HF-EM/CM patients treated with galcanezumab reported a more allodynic HPT, CPT and MPT in non-responders [3]. Another galcanezumab study including EM and CM patients reported only HPT in distal regions to be associated with a clinical response [43]. An erenumab treatment study in CM showed increased TS threshold for the responders versus non-responders; however, there was no difference in VAS scores for stimulus 1 versus stimulus 5 between responders and non-responders suggesting no difference in central sensitization [9]. Pre-treatment QST measurements could not predict treatment outcome [9]. Since conflicting evidence exist, further research is necessary to ascertain the predictive value of QST measurements to identify treatment responders.

Additionally, the CPM paradigm and CCM measurements may possibly be useful tools to assess and predict treatment response. Two studies reported an improvement of CPM response after treatment [27, 35]. For CCM, no studies were conducted that included treatment intervention. Previous studies in neuropathy showed that corneal nerve densities can change in response to treatment [56, 59]. Currently, no clear CCM profile for migraine patients has been established, however, it might possible be a useful tool to evaluate or even predict treatment response. More research is needed to determine the potential role of CPM and explore the role of CCM in the evaluation of treatment effect in migraine.

Migraine phases

Many psychophysical studies have conducted QST or CPM assessments during the interictal phase, with several failing to specify the assessment’s timing relative to the headache phase, while only a few considered the migraine phase and aimed to explore the interaction of (inter)ictal phase and psychophysical outcome parameters.

A large study comprehensively examined QST measurements across migraine phases, finding lower PPT values for HF-EM compared to controls in preictal and postictal phases, while HF-EM and CM exhibited similar values to controls in the ictal phase; LF-EM showed inconclusive results for PPT assessment, and TS values were similar between LF-EM and controls across phases, but higher for HF-EM and CM compared to controls in the ictal phase [15]. In another study involving EM and CM patients, QST measurements analyzed across migraine phases revealed a negative correlation between headache frequency and MPT for EM patients, with no such correlation observed for CM patients, additionally reporting higher MPT values in the interictal phase compared to the preictal, ictal, and postictal phases for EM patients [40]. Moreover, a study administering nitroglycerin (as migraine-like attack provocation) to EM patients revealed increased TS for LF-EM and no differences for HF-EM and controls post-administration [10]. In contrast, other studies employing phase-matched categories found no influence on CPM response [60] or QST measurement [43] or showed an increased mechanical sensitivity in all phases compared to the interictal phase [50]. Overall, inconsistent results are reported regarding alterations in QST or CPM measurements in relation to the migraine phases.

A strength of our systematic review is the thorough literature search through multiple databases, ensuring a comprehensive inclusion of all relevant papers. We were mindful of potential publication bias and therefore took measures to minimize its impact by applying well-defined criteria for study inclusion and conducting a thorough evaluation of the methodological quality of the included studies, contributing to the quality of our review. A limitation of our review is that we included only papers on human studies. Secondly, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the current evidence based method, as some studies did not primarily focus comparison of migraine patients versus controls but focused for instance on treatment effect. We tried to include those studies in our discussion section.

Conclusion

This systematic review aimed to summarize current findings on pain profiles in migraine, with a specific focus on QST, CPM, and CCM tests, encapsulating existing knowledge about sensory processing and pain modulation in migraine patients. In summary, pain processing measurements in migraine sufferers varies based on factors like sensory modality and measurement approach, and migraine features.

Take home messages

  1. 1.

    The Quantitative sensory testing (QST) studies indicate that migraine patients exhibit lower pressure pain threshold (PPT) in the trigeminal region or in distal areas.

  2. 2.

    Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) studies in migraine patients suggest a normal inhibitory response, but with a decline in CPM response compared to controls. High-frequency and chronic migraine patients may exhibit a facilitatory CPM response.

  3. 3.

    Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) studies in migraine show conflicting results, likely due to small sample sizes and limited phenotyping of migraine characteristics.

  4. 4.

    We recommend further research to determine pain profiling for chronic migraine (with/without medication overuse headache) compared to episodic migraine, and to investigate the transition from chronic to episodic migraine as this will provide more insight in the pain pathophysiology underlying migraine.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

CM:

Chronic Migraine

CCM:

Corneal Confocal Microscopy

CGRP:

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide

CNFD:

Corneal Nerve Fiber Density

CNFL:

Corneal Nerve Fiber Length

CNBD:

Corneal Nerve Branch Density

CTBD:

Corneal Total Branch Density

CNFA:

Corneal Fiber Area

CNFW:

Corneal Nerve Fiber Width

CPM:

Conditioned Pain Modulation

CPT:

Cold Pain Threshold

cs:

conditioned stimulus

EM:

Episodic Migraine

HDT/WDT:

Heat/Warm Detection Threshold

HF-EM:

High-Frequency Episodic Migraine

HPS:

Heat Pain Suprathreshold

HPT:

Heat Pain Threshold

ICHD-3:

International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition

LF-EM:

Low-Frequency Episodic Migraine

L-VISS:

Leiden Visual Sensitivity Scale

MA:

Migraine with Aura

MO:

Migraine withOut aura

MAMD:

Monthly Acute Medication Days

MDT:

Mechanical Detection Threshold

MHD:

Monthly Headache Days

MMD:

Monthly Migraine Days

MOH:

Medication Overuse Headache

MPT:

Mechanical Pain Threshold

nBR:

Nerve blink reflex

NRS:

Numerical Rating Scale

PPT:

Pressure Pain Threshold

PDT:

Prick Detection Threshold

2PDT:

Two-Point Detection Threshold

QST:

Quantitative Sensory Testing

SREP:

Slowly Repeated Evoked Pain

ts:

Test stimulus

TS:

Temporal Summation

TDT:

Tactile Detection Threshold

TTH:

Tension-Type Headache

References

  1. Argaman Y, Kisler LB, Granovsky Y, Coghill RC, Sprecher E, Manor D, Weissman-Fogel I (2020) The endogenous analgesia signature in the resting brain of healthy adults and migraineurs. J Pain 21(7–8):905–918

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashina M, Terwindt GM, Al-Karagholi MA, de Boer I, Lee MJ, Hay DL, Schulte LH, Hadjikhani N, Sinclair AJ, Ashina H, Schwedt TJ, Goadsby PJ (2021) Migraine: disease characterisation, biomarkers, and precision medicine. Lancet 397(10283):1496–1504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ashina S, Melo-Carrillo A, Szabo E, Borsook D, Burstein R (2023) Pre-treatment non-ictal cephalic allodynia identifies responders to prophylactic treatment of chronic and episodic migraine patients with galcanezumab: a prospective quantitative sensory testing study (NCT04271202). Cephalalgia 43(3):3331024221147881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashina S, Terwindt GM, Steiner TJ, Lee MJ, Porreca F, Tassorelli C, Schwedt TJ, Jensen RH, Diener HC, Lipton RB (2023) Medication overuse headache. Nat Rev Dis Primers 9(1):5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barone M, Imaz F, De la Torre Canales G, Venosta M, Dri J, Intelangelo L (2024) Somatosensory and psychosocial profile of migraine patients: a cross-sectional study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 70:102924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brines M, Culver DA, Ferdousi M, Tannemaat MR, van Velzen M, Dahan A, Malik RA (2018) Corneal nerve fiber size adds utility to the diagnosis and assessment of therapeutic response in patients with small fiber neuropathy. Sci Rep 8(1):4734

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Burstein R, Jakubowski M, Garcia-Nicas E, Kainz V, Bajwa Z, Hargreaves R, Becerra L, Borsook D (2010) Thalamic sensitization transforms localized pain into widespread allodynia. Ann Neurol 68(1):81–91

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi JY, Oh K, Kim BJ, Chung CS, Koh SB, Park KW (2009) Usefulness of a photophobia questionnaire in patients with migraine. Cephalalgia 29(9):953–959

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De Icco R, Fiamingo G, Greco R, Bottiroli S, Demartini C, Zanaboni AM, Allena M, Guaschino E, Martinelli D, Putortì A, Grillo V, Sances G, Tassorelli C (2020) Neurophysiological and biomolecular effects of erenumab in chronic migraine: an open label study. Cephalalgia 40(12):1336–1345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. De Icco R, Perrotta A, Grillo V, Cosentino G, Sances G, Sandrini G, Tassorelli C (2020) Experimentally induced spinal nociceptive sensitization increases with migraine frequency: a single-blind controlled study. Pain 161(2):429–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de la Coba P, Bruehl S, Del Paso GAR (2021) Slowly repeated evoked pain (SREP) as a central sensitization marker in episodic migraine patients. Sci Rep 11(1):4582

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. de Tommaso M, Losito L, Difruscolo O, Sardaro M, Libro G, Guido M, Lamberti P, Livrea P (2005) Capsaicin failed in suppressing cortical processing of CO2 laser pain in migraine patients. Neurosci Lett 384(1–2):150–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Tommaso M, Sardaro M, Pecoraro C, Di Fruscolo O, Serpino C, Lamberti P, Livrea P (2007) Effects of the remote C fibres stimulation induced by capsaicin on the blink reflex in chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 27(8):881–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. de Tommaso M, Baumgartner U, Sardaro M, Difruscolo O, Serpino C, Treede RD (2008) Effects of distraction versus spatial discrimination on laser-evoked potentials in migraine. Headache 48(3):408–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Di Antonio S, Arendt-Nielsen L, Ponzano M, Bovis F, Torelli P, Finocchi C, Castaldo M Trigeminocervical pain sensitivity during the migraine cycle depends on headache frequency. Neurol Sci 2023:1–12

  16. Elizagaray-Garcia I, Carvalho GF, Szikszay TM, Adamczyk WM, Navarro-Fernandez G, Alvarez-Testillano P, Diaz-de-Teran J, Luedtke K, Gil-Martinez A (2022) Psychophysical testing in chronic migraine and chronic tension type headache: an observational study. Cephalalgia 42(7):618–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gazerani P, Fuglsang R, Pedersen JG, Sørensen J, Kjeldsen JL, Yassin H, Nedergaard BS (2019) A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel trial of vitamin D(3) supplementation in adult patients with migraine. Curr Med Res Opin 35(4):715–723

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Granovsky Y, Shor M, Shifrin A, Sprecher E, Yarnitsky D, Bar-Shalita T (2018) Assessment of responsiveness to Everyday Non-noxious Stimuli in Pain-Free Migraineurs with Versus without Aura. J Pain 19(8):943–951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Guldiken YC, Petropoulos IN, Malik A, Malik RA, Yüksel R, Budak F, Selekler HM (2023) Corneal confocal microscopy identifies corneal nerve fiber loss in patients with migraine. Cephalalgia 43(5):3331024231170810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guy N, Voisin D, Mulliez A, Clavelou P, Dallel R (2018) Medication overuse reinstates conditioned pain modulation in women with migraine. Cephalalgia 38(6):1148–1158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Headache_Classification_Committee_of_the_International_Headache_Society (2018); 38(1):1-211

  22. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane 2023

  23. Kennedy DL, Kemp HI, Ridout D, Yarnitsky D, Rice ASC (2016) Reliability of conditioned pain modulation: a systematic review. Pain 157(11):2410–2419

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kinard KI, Smith AG, Singleton JR, Lessard MK, Katz BJ, Warner JE, Crum AV, Mifflin MD, Brennan KC, Digre KB (2015) Chronic migraine is associated with reduced corneal nerve fiber density and symptoms of dry eye. Headache 55(4):543–549

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. King CD, Wong F, Currie T, Mauderli AP, Fillingim RB, Riley JL 3 (2009) Deficiency in endogenous modulation of prolonged heat pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and temporomandibular disorder. Pain 143(3):172–178

  26. Kisler LB, Granovsky Y, Coghill RC, Sprecher E, Manor D, Yarnitsky D, Weissman-Fogel I (2018) Do patients with interictal migraine modulate pain differently from healthy controls? A psychophysical and brain imaging study. Pain 159(12):2667–2677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kisler LB, Weissman-Fogel I, Coghill RC, Sprecher E, Yarnitsky D, Granovsky Y (2019) Individualization of Migraine Prevention: a randomized controlled trial of psychophysical-based prediction of Duloxetine Efficacy. Clin J Pain 35(9):753–765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kroll LS, Hammarlund CS, Gard G, Jensen RH, Bendtsen L (2018) Has aerobic exercise effect on pain perception in persons with migraine and coexisting tension-type headache and neck pain? A randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Eur J Pain 22(8):1399–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lutolf R, Rosner J, Curt A, Hubli M (2022) Indicators of central sensitization in chronic neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. Eur J Pain 26(10):2162–2175

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Malo-Urriés M, Estébanez-de-Miguel E, Bueno-Gracia E, Tricás-Moreno JM, Santos-Lasaosa S, Hidalgo-García C (2020) Sensory function in headache: a comparative study among patients with cluster headache, migraine, tension-type headache, and asymptomatic subjects. Neurol Sci 41(10):2801–2810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT (2021) Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods 12(1):55–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nahman-Averbuch H, Granovsky Y, Coghill RC, Yarnitsky D, Sprecher E, Weissman-Fogel I (2013) Waning of conditioned pain modulation: a novel expression of subtle pronociception in migraine. Headache 53(7):1104–1115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nahman-Averbuch H, Shefi T, Schneider VJ 2nd, Li D, Ding L, King CD, Coghill RC (2018) Quantitative sensory testing in patients with migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain 159(7):1202–1223

  35. Nahman-Averbuch H, Schneider VJ 2nd, Chamberlin LA, Van Kroon AM, Peugh JL, Lee GR, Radhakrishnan R, Hershey AD, Powers SW, Coghill RC, King CD (2021) Identification of neural and psychophysical predictors of headache reduction after cognitive behavioral therapy in adolescents with migraine. Pain 162(2):372–381

  36. Neziri AY, Haesler S, Petersen-Felix S, Muller M, Arendt-Nielsen L, Manresa JB, Andersen OK, Curatolo M (2010) Generalized expansion of nociceptive reflex receptive fields in chronic pain patients. Pain 151(3):798–805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Niesters M, Proto PL, Aarts L, Sarton EY, Drewes AM, Dahan A (2014) Tapentadol potentiates descending pain inhibition in chronic pain patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Br J Anaesth 113(1):148–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. O’Brien AT, Deitos A, Trinanes Pego Y, Fregni F, Carrillo-de-la-Pena MT (2018) Defective Endogenous Pain Modulation in Fibromyalgia: a Meta-analysis of temporal summation and conditioned Pain Modulation paradigms. J Pain 19(8):819–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ozarslan M, Matur Z, Tuzun E, Oge AE (2022) Cutaneous allodynia and thermal thresholds in chronic migraine: the effect of onabotulinumtoxinA. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 220:107357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pan LH, Wang YF, Lai KL, Chen WT, Chen SP, Ling YH, Chou LW, Treede RD, Wang SJ (2020) Mechanical punctate pain threshold is associated with headache frequency and phase in patients with migraine. Cephalalgia 40(9):990–997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pan LH, Wang YF, Ling YH, Lai KL, Chen SP, Chen WT, Treede RD, Wang SJ (2022) Pain sensitivities predict prophylactic treatment outcomes of flunarizine in chronic migraine patients: a prospective study. Cephalalgia 42(9):899–909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Patzko A, Csutak A, Toth N, Kolkedi Z, Pfund Z, Kis-Jakab G, Bosnyak E, Rozgonyi R, Szalai E (2024) Analysis of the ocular surface functional unit in episodic migraine. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 262(5):1591–1598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Peng KP, Basedau H, Oppermann T, May A (2022) Trigeminal sensory modulatory effects of galcanezumab and clinical response prediction. Pain 163(11):2194–2199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Perenboom MJL, Zamanipoor Najafabadi AH, Zielman R, Carpay JA, Ferrari MD (2018) Quantifying visual allodynia across migraine subtypes: the Leiden Visual Sensitivity Scale. Pain 159(11):2375–2382

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Perrotta A, Serrao M, Sandrini G, Burstein R, Sances G, Rossi P, Bartolo M, Pierelli F, Nappi G (2010) Sensitisation of spinal cord pain processing in medication overuse headache involves supraspinal pain control. Cephalalgia 30(3):272–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Petropoulos IN, Alam U, Fadavi H, Asghar O, Green P, Ponirakis G, Marshall A, Boulton AJ, Tavakoli M, Malik RA (2013) Corneal nerve loss detected with corneal confocal microscopy is symmetrical and related to the severity of diabetic polyneuropathy. Diabetes Care 36(11):3646–3651

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Pijpers JA, Kies DA, van Zwet EW, de Boer I, Terwindt GM (2023) Cutaneous allodynia as predictor for treatment response in chronic migraine: a cohort study. J Headache Pain 24(1):118

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Rolke R, Baron R, Maier C, Tolle TR, Treede DR, Beyer A, Binder A, Birbaumer N, Birklein F, Botefur IC, Braune S, Flor H, Huge V, Klug R, Landwehrmeyer GB, Magerl W, Maihofner C, Rolko C, Schaub C, Scherens A, Sprenger T, Valet M, Wasserka B (2006) Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): standardized protocol and reference values. Pain 123(3):231–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sandrini G, Rossi P, Milanov I, Serrao M, Cecchini AP, Nappi G (2006) Abnormal modulatory influence of diffuse noxious inhibitory controls in migraine and chronic tension-type headache patients. Cephalalgia 26(7):782–789

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Scholten-Peeters GGM, Coppieters MW, Durge TSC, Castien RF (2020) Fluctuations in local and widespread mechanical sensitivity throughout the migraine cycle: a prospective longitudinal study. J Headache Pain 21(1):16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Seifert F, Kiefer G, DeCol R, Schmelz M, Maihofner C (2009) Differential endogenous pain modulation in complex-regional pain syndrome. Brain 132(Pt 3):788–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Shen F, Dong X, Zhou X, Yan L, Wan Q (2019) Corneal subbasal nerve plexus changes in patients with episodic migraine: an in vivo confocal microscopy study. J Pain Res 12:1489–1495

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Shetty R, Deshmukh R, Shroff R, Dedhiya C, Jayadev C (2018) Subbasal nerve plexus changes in chronic migraine. Cornea 37(1):72–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25(9):603–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Szikszay TM, Adamczyk WM, Carvalho GF, May A, Luedtke K (2020) Offset analgesia: somatotopic endogenous pain modulation in migraine. Pain 161(3):557–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tavakoli M, Mitu-Pretorian M, Petropoulos IN, Fadavi H, Asghar O, Alam U, Ponirakis G, Jeziorska M, Marshall A, Efron N, Boulton AJ, Augustine T, Malik RA (2013) Corneal confocal microscopy detects early nerve regeneration in diabetic neuropathy after simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation. Diabetes 62(1):254–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Teepker M, Kunz M, Peters M, Kundermann B, Schepelmann K, Lautenbacher S (2014) Endogenous pain inhibition during menstrual cycle in migraine. Eur J Pain 18(7):989–998

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. van de Donk T, van Cosburgh J, van Dasselaar T, van Velzen M, Drewes AM, Dahan A, Niesters M (2020) Tapentadol treatment results in long-term pain relief in patients with chronic low back pain and associates with reduced segmental sensitization. Pain Rep 5(6):e877

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. van Velzen M, Heij L, Niesters M, Cerami A, Dunne A, Dahan A, Brines M (2014) ARA 290 for treatment of small fiber neuropathy in sarcoidosis. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 23(4):541–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Williams AE, Miller MM, Bartley EJ, McCabe KM, Kerr KL, Rhudy JL (2019) Impairment of inhibition of Trigeminal Nociception via Conditioned Pain Modulation in persons with Migraine headaches. Pain Med 20(8):1600–1610

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Yarnitsky D, Granot M, Granovsky Y (2014) Pain modulation profile and pain therapy: between pro- and antinociception. Pain 155(4):663–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgements.

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. 9600, Leiden, 2300 WB, The Netherlands

    Floor Clarissa van Welie & Gisela Marie Terwindt

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Albert Dahan & Monique van Velzen

Authors
  1. Floor Clarissa van Welie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Albert Dahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Monique van Velzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gisela Marie Terwindt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FvW substantial contributed to the conception, design of the work, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data and drafted the manuscript. GMT substantial contributed to the conception, design of the work, acquisition and interpretation of data and revised the manuscript. MvV substantial contributed to the conception, design of the work, acquisition and interpretation of data and revised the manuscript. AD substantively revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gisela Marie Terwindt.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Welie, F.C., Dahan, A., van Velzen, M. et al. Pain profiling in migraine: a systematic review of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST), Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM), and Corneal Confocal Microscopy (CCM). J Headache Pain 25, 224 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s10194-024-01932-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s10194-024-01932-x

Keywords

The Journal of Headache and Pain

ISSN: 1129-2377

Contact us