Long-term consistency of clinical sensory testing measures for pain assessment.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pablo Bellosta-López, Víctor Doménech-García, Thorvaldur Skuli Palsson, Pablo Herrero, Steffan Wittrup Mcphee Christensen
{"title":"Long-term consistency of clinical sensory testing measures for pain assessment.","authors":"Pablo Bellosta-López,&nbsp;Víctor Doménech-García,&nbsp;Thorvaldur Skuli Palsson,&nbsp;Pablo Herrero,&nbsp;Steffan Wittrup Mcphee Christensen","doi":"10.3344/kjp.23011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Understanding the stability of quantitative sensory tests (QSTs) over time is important to aid clinicians in selecting a battery of tests for assessing and monitoring patients. This study evaluated the short- and long-term reliability of selected QSTs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty healthy women participated in three experimental sessions: Baseline, 2 weeks, and 6 months. Measurements included pressure pain thresholds (PPT) in the neck, upper back, and leg; Pressure-cuff pain tolerance around the upper-arm; conditioned pain modulation during a pressure-cuff stimulus; and referred pain following a suprathreshold pressure stimulation. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and minimum detectable change (MDC) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reliability for PPT was excellent for all sites at 2 weeks (ICC, 0.96-0.99; MDC, 22-55 kPa) and from good to excellent at 6 months (ICC, 0.88-0.95; MDC, 47-91 kPa). ICC for pressure-cuff pain tolerance indicated excellent reliability at both times (0.91-0.97). For conditioned pain modulation, reliability was moderate for all sites at 2 weeks (ICC, 0.57-0.74; MDC, 24%-35%), while it was moderate at the neck (ICC, 0.54; MDC, 27%) and poor at the upper back and leg at 6 months. ICC for referred pain areas was excellent at 2 weeks (0.90) and good at 6 months (0.86).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PPT, pressure pain tolerance, and pressure-induced referred pain should be considered reliable procedures to assess the pain-sensory profile over time. In contrast, conditioned pain modulation was shown to be unstable. Future studies prospectively analyzing the pain-sensory profile will be able to better calculate appropriate sample sizes.</p>","PeriodicalId":56252,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pain","volume":"36 2","pages":"173-183"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0f/70/kjp-36-2-173.PMC10043786.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.23011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Understanding the stability of quantitative sensory tests (QSTs) over time is important to aid clinicians in selecting a battery of tests for assessing and monitoring patients. This study evaluated the short- and long-term reliability of selected QSTs.

Methods: Twenty healthy women participated in three experimental sessions: Baseline, 2 weeks, and 6 months. Measurements included pressure pain thresholds (PPT) in the neck, upper back, and leg; Pressure-cuff pain tolerance around the upper-arm; conditioned pain modulation during a pressure-cuff stimulus; and referred pain following a suprathreshold pressure stimulation. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and minimum detectable change (MDC) were calculated.

Results: Reliability for PPT was excellent for all sites at 2 weeks (ICC, 0.96-0.99; MDC, 22-55 kPa) and from good to excellent at 6 months (ICC, 0.88-0.95; MDC, 47-91 kPa). ICC for pressure-cuff pain tolerance indicated excellent reliability at both times (0.91-0.97). For conditioned pain modulation, reliability was moderate for all sites at 2 weeks (ICC, 0.57-0.74; MDC, 24%-35%), while it was moderate at the neck (ICC, 0.54; MDC, 27%) and poor at the upper back and leg at 6 months. ICC for referred pain areas was excellent at 2 weeks (0.90) and good at 6 months (0.86).

Conclusions: PPT, pressure pain tolerance, and pressure-induced referred pain should be considered reliable procedures to assess the pain-sensory profile over time. In contrast, conditioned pain modulation was shown to be unstable. Future studies prospectively analyzing the pain-sensory profile will be able to better calculate appropriate sample sizes.

Abstract Image

疼痛评估的临床感觉测试措施的长期一致性。
背景:了解定量感觉试验(QSTs)随时间的稳定性对于帮助临床医生选择一组用于评估和监测患者的试验非常重要。本研究评估了所选qst的短期和长期可靠性。方法:20名健康女性参加了三个实验阶段:基线、2周和6个月。测量包括颈部、上背部和腿部的压力疼痛阈值(PPT);上臂周围压力袖带疼痛耐受力;压力袖带刺激时的条件性疼痛调节;以及阈上压力刺激后的牵涉性疼痛。计算了类内相关系数(ICC)和最小可检测变化(MDC)。结果:2周时PPT在所有部位的信度都很好(ICC, 0.96-0.99;MDC, 22-55 kPa), 6个月时从良好到优秀(ICC, 0.88-0.95;MDC, 47-91 kPa)。压力袖带疼痛耐受性的ICC在两次测试中均表现出极好的可靠性(0.91-0.97)。对于条理性疼痛调节,2周时所有部位的信度均为中等(ICC, 0.57-0.74;MDC, 24%-35%),而颈部适中(ICC, 0.54;MDC, 27%), 6个月时上背部和腿部较差。转介疼痛区域的ICC在2周(0.90)和6个月(0.86)时表现良好。结论:PPT、压力疼痛耐受性和压力诱发的转诊疼痛应该被认为是评估疼痛感觉的可靠方法。相反,条件疼痛调节被证明是不稳定的。未来的研究前瞻性地分析疼痛感觉档案将能够更好地计算适当的样本量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Korean Journal of Pain
Korean Journal of Pain Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Korean Journal of Pain (Korean J Pain, KJP) is the official journal of the Korean Pain Society, founded in 1986. It has been published since 1988. It publishes peer reviewed original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. It has been published quarterly in English since 2009 (on the first day of January, April, July, and October). In addition, it has also become the official journal of the International Spinal Pain Society since 2016. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals. The circulation number per issue is 50.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信