The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society
-
Multiple investigators have recently asked whether neuroimaging has shown that chronic pain is a brain disease. We review the clinical implications of seeing chronic pain as a brain disease. Abnormalities noted on imaging of peripheral structures have previously misled the clinical care of patients with chronic pain. We also cannot assume that the changes associated with chronic pain on neuroimaging are causal. When considering the significance of neuroimaging results, it is important to remember that "disease" is a concept that arises out of clinical medicine, not laboratory science. Following Canguilhem, we believe that disease is best defined as a structural or functional change that causes disvalue to the whole organism. It is important to be cautious in our assertions about chronic pain as a brain disease because these may have negative effects on 1) the therapeutic dialogue between clinicians and patients; 2) the social dialogue about reimbursement for pain treatments and disability due to pain; and 3) the chronic pain research agenda. Considered scientifically, we may be looking for the cause of chronic pain through neuroimaging, but considered clinically, we are in fact often looking to validate pain complaints. We should not yield to the temptation to validate pain with the magnetic resonance imaging scanner (structural or functional). We should not see pain as caused by the brain alone. Pain is not felt by the brain, but by the person. ⋯ Neuroimaging investigators have argued that brain imaging may demonstrate that chronic pain is a brain disease. We argue that "disease" is a clinical concept and that conceiving of chronic pain as a brain disease can have negative consequences for research and clinical care of patients with chronic pain.
-
Review Historical Article
The infancy of infant pain research: the experimental origins of infant pain denial.
Skepticism toward infant pain characterized much of 20th century research and clinical practice, with infant surgery routinely conducted with minimal or no anesthesia into the 1980s. This paper offers a historical exploration of how this view became common by reviewing and analyzing the experimental infant pain research of the 19th and early 20th centuries that contributed to the development of infant pain denial. These experiments used pinprick and electric shock, and the results were generally interpreted as evidence of infants' underdeveloped pain perception, attributed to their lack of brain maturation. Even clear responses to noxious stimuli were often dismissed as reflex responding. Later these experimental findings were used by anesthesiologists to support the lessened use of anesthesia for infants. Based on the reviewed literature, this paper suggests that 4 interrelated causes contributed to the denial of infant pain: the Darwinian view of the child as a lower being, extreme experimental caution, the mechanistic behaviorist perspective, and an increasing emphasis on brain and nervous system development. Ultimately this history can be read as a caution to modern researchers to be aware of their own biases, the risks of null hypothesis testing, and a purely mechanistic view of infants. ⋯ This article reviews the history of 19th and early 20th century infant pain research, tracing how the widely accepted belief that infants could not feel pain developed in the period prior to the growing acceptance of infant pain. Four interrelated causes are posited to help explain the tolerance of infant pain denial until recent times.
-
There is a well-established comorbidity between migraine and anxiety and depression (A/D). Here, we investigate whether this relationship is specific for migraine and A/D or whether other types of pain are also consistently associated with A/D. In addition, we test whether there is a consistent association between migraine and other types of pain when comorbidity with A/D is controlled for. Data on A/D, migraine, and 6 nonheadache pain locations (back, neck, orofacial area, abdomen, joints, and chest) were analyzed in 2,981 participants from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). It was tested whether the prevalence of pain in each individual location, as well as the total number of pain locations, depended on A/D and migraine status. A/D was consistently associated with pain in all measured locations. Migraine was also associated with pain in all anatomical sites, but these associations weakened substantially after correction for A/D severity, suggesting that a considerable part of the comorbidity of migraine and other types of pain may be explained by A/D. These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for A/D in studies of pain comorbidity. This will contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying A/D and pain. ⋯ Anxiety and depression are consistently associated with pain, regardless of anatomical site. These disorders may be important factors in the co-occurrence of different pain disorders. Awareness of this comorbidity and a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms may facilitate adequate treatment of both types of conditions.