Sleep restriction attenuates amplitudes and attentional modulation of pain-related evoked potentials, but augments pain ratings in healthy volunteers

The experiment investigated the impact of sleep restriction on pain perception and related evoked potential correlates (laser-evoked potentials, LEPs). Ten healthy subjects with good sleep quality were investigated in the morning twice, once after habitual sleep and once after partial sleep restriction. Additionally, we studied the impact of attentional focussing on pain and LEPs by directing attention to (intensity discrimination) or away from the stimulus (mental arithmetic). Laser stimuli directed to the hand dorsum were rated as 30% more painful after sleep restriction (49+/-7 mm) than after a night of habitual sleep (38+/-7 mm). A significant interaction between attentional focus and sleep condition suggested that attentional focusing was less distinctive under sleep restriction. Intensity discrimination was preserved. In contrast, the amplitude of the early parasylvian N1 of LEPs was significantly smaller after a night of partial sleep restriction (-36%, p<0.05). Likewise, the amplitude of the vertex N2-P2 was significantly reduced (-34%, p<0.01); also attentional modulation of the N2-P2 was reduced. Thus, objective (LEPs) and subjective (pain ratings) parameters of nociceptive processing were differentially modulated by partial sleep restriction. We propose, that sleep reduction leads to an impairment of activation in the ascending pathway (leading to reduced LEPs). In contradistinction, pain perception was boosted, which we attribute to lack of pain control distinct from classical descending inhibition, and thus not affecting the projection pathway. Sleep-restricted subjects exhibit reduced attentional modulation of pain stimuli and may thus have difficulties to readily attend to or disengage from pain.

Does land-based exercise reduce pain and disability associated with hip osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine if clinical guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) are supported by rigorous scientific evidence. Methods A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based exercise program (as opposed to exercises conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group in terms of hip pain and/or self-reported physical function. Results Thirty-two RCTs were identified, but only five met the inclusion criteria. Only one of the five included RCTs restricted recruitment to people with hip OA, the other four RCTs also recruiting participants with knee OA. The five included studies provided data on 204 and 187 hip OA participants for pain and physical function, respectively. Combining the results of the five included RCTs using a fixed-effects model demonstrated a small treatment effect for pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.67 to −0.09). No significant benefit in terms of improved self-reported physical function was detected (SMD −0.02; 95% CI −0.31 to 0.28). Conclusion Currently there is only silver level evidence (one small RCT) supporting the benefit of land-based therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip OA in terms of reduced pain and improved physical function. The limited number and small sample size of the included RCTs restricts the confidence that can be attributed to these results.