Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2016 May 5;157(9):2000–2011. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000604

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© 2016 International Association for the Study of Pain

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits downloading and sharing the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 4. — The CPM response at the precompression baseline and after 3 compression protocols. (A) Overall, no significant difference was found between the pre- and post-compression CPM assessment. However, the CPM was more efficient after the MEDIUM protocol as compared with the SMALL protocol. (B) For males, lower CPM efficiency was observed following the SMALL as compared with the MEDIUM compression protocols; for females, similar CPM responses were denoted across all conditions. (C) For males, the CPM efficiency was reduced from the baseline following the SMALL as compared with the changes in CPM efficiency following the MEDIUM protocol. *P ≤ 0.05. CPM, conditioned pain modulation; SMALL, compression area up to the ankle; MEDIUM, compression area up to the knees; LARGE, compression area up to the hip joint.