↓ Skip to main content

Negative Affectivity, Depression, and Resting Heart Rate Variability (HRV) as Possible Moderators of Endogenous Pain Modulation in Functional Somatic Syndromes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Negative Affectivity, Depression, and Resting Heart Rate Variability (HRV) as Possible Moderators of Endogenous Pain Modulation in Functional Somatic Syndromes
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00275
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maaike Van Den Houte, Lukas Van Oudenhove, Ilse Van Diest, Katleen Bogaerts, Philippe Persoons, Jozef De Bie, Omer Van den Bergh

Abstract

Background: Several studies have shown that patients with functional somatic syndromes (FSS) have, on average, deficient endogenous pain modulation (EPM), as well as elevated levels of negative affectivity (NA) and high comorbidity with depression and reduced resting heart rate variability (HRV) compared to healthy controls (HC). The goals of this study were (1) to replicate these findings and (2) to investigate the moderating role of NA, depression, and resting HRV in EPM efficiency within a patient group with fibromyalgia and/or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Resting HRV was quantified as the root mean square of successive differences between inter-beat intervals (RMSSD) in rest, a vagally mediated time domain measure of HRV.Methods:Seventy-eight patients with fibromyalgia and/or CFS and 33 HC completed a counter-irritation paradigm as a measure of EPM efficiency. Participants rated the painfulness of electrocutaneous stimuli (of individually calibrated intensity) on the ankle before (baseline phase), during (counter-irritation phase) and after (recovery phase) the application of a cold pain stimulus on the forearm. A larger reduction in pain in the counter-irritation phase compared to the baseline phase reflects a more efficient EPM.Results:In contrast to our expectations, there was no difference between pain ratings in the baseline compared to counter-irritation phase for both patients and HC. Therefore, reliable conclusions on the moderating effect of NA, depression, and RMSSD could not be made. Surprisingly, patients reported more pain in the recovery compared to the counter-irritation and baseline phase, while HC did not. This latter effect was more pronounced in patients with comorbid depression, patients who rated the painfulness of the counter-irritation stimulus as high and patients who rated the painfulness of the electrocutaneous stimuli as low. We did not manage to successfully replicate the counter-irritation effect in HC or FSS patients. Therefore, no valid conclusions on the association between RMSSD, depression, NA and EPM efficiency can be drawn from this study. Possible reasons for the lack of the counter-irritation effect are discussed.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 27 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 30 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,644,520
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,319
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,801
of 333,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#91
of 576 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 576 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.