慢性腰痛的压力痛阈值和机械时间累积的会话内测试-重测信度。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Fábio Carlos Lucas de Oliveira, Camille Cossette, Catherine Mailloux, Timothy H Wideman, Louis-David Beaulieu, Hugo Massé-Alarie
{"title":"慢性腰痛的压力痛阈值和机械时间累积的会话内测试-重测信度。","authors":"Fábio Carlos Lucas de Oliveira,&nbsp;Camille Cossette,&nbsp;Catherine Mailloux,&nbsp;Timothy H Wideman,&nbsp;Louis-David Beaulieu,&nbsp;Hugo Massé-Alarie","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the absolute and relative within-session test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) at the low back and the forearm in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and to test the impact of different sequences of measurements on reliability metrics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-eight adults with CLBP were recruited. Relative (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and coefficient of variation) and absolute reliability (standard error of measurement and minimal detectable changes) were quantified at 4 sites (back: sacrum and lumbar erector spinae; wrist: hand dorsum and wrist flexors) for PPT and 2 sites (hand and low back) for TSP, for various sequences of measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Systematic differences were found between within test and retest for most PPT sequences at the lumbar erector spinae site and 1 TSP sequence (1-2-3) at back and hand sites, precluding reliability analyses for these data. Within-session PPT relative reliability was excellent at low back (ICC = 0.83 to 0.94) and wrist (ICC = 0.88 to 0.97) sites, whereas TSP showed good to excellent reliability at hand (ICC = 0.80 to 0.90) and low back (ICC = 0.73 to 0.89). In general, 2 and 3 measurements optimized absolute and relative reliability for TSP and PPT, respectively.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Within-session reliability was generally excellent for PPT and TSP at the low back and hand sites among individuals with CLBP. We recommend using 3 measurements for PPT and 2 for TSP to optimize reliability. Caution is recommended when testing PPT of the painful lower back area since a systematic difference was present between the test and retest.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":"39 5","pages":"217-225"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Within-Session Test-Retest Reliability of Pressure Pain Threshold and Mechanical Temporal Summation in Chronic Low Back Pain.\",\"authors\":\"Fábio Carlos Lucas de Oliveira,&nbsp;Camille Cossette,&nbsp;Catherine Mailloux,&nbsp;Timothy H Wideman,&nbsp;Louis-David Beaulieu,&nbsp;Hugo Massé-Alarie\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the absolute and relative within-session test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) at the low back and the forearm in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and to test the impact of different sequences of measurements on reliability metrics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-eight adults with CLBP were recruited. Relative (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and coefficient of variation) and absolute reliability (standard error of measurement and minimal detectable changes) were quantified at 4 sites (back: sacrum and lumbar erector spinae; wrist: hand dorsum and wrist flexors) for PPT and 2 sites (hand and low back) for TSP, for various sequences of measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Systematic differences were found between within test and retest for most PPT sequences at the lumbar erector spinae site and 1 TSP sequence (1-2-3) at back and hand sites, precluding reliability analyses for these data. Within-session PPT relative reliability was excellent at low back (ICC = 0.83 to 0.94) and wrist (ICC = 0.88 to 0.97) sites, whereas TSP showed good to excellent reliability at hand (ICC = 0.80 to 0.90) and low back (ICC = 0.73 to 0.89). In general, 2 and 3 measurements optimized absolute and relative reliability for TSP and PPT, respectively.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Within-session reliability was generally excellent for PPT and TSP at the low back and hand sites among individuals with CLBP. We recommend using 3 measurements for PPT and 2 for TSP to optimize reliability. Caution is recommended when testing PPT of the painful lower back area since a systematic difference was present between the test and retest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"39 5\",\"pages\":\"217-225\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001106\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001106","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定慢性腰痛(CLBP)患者腰背部和前臂压力疼痛阈值(PPT)和疼痛时间总和(TSP)的绝对和相对测试-重测信度,并测试不同测量序列对信度指标的影响。材料和方法:招募28名患有CLBP的成年人。相对(类内相关系数[ICC]和变异系数)和绝对信度(测量标准误差和最小可检测变化)在4个部位(背部:骶骨和腰竖脊;手腕:手背和腕屈肌)用于PPT, 2个部位(手和下背部)用于TSP,用于各种顺序的测量。结果:在腰竖肌部位的大多数PPT序列和背部和手部部位的1个TSP序列(1-2-3)的内部测试和重新测试之间存在系统性差异,排除了这些数据的可靠性分析。会话内PPT在腰背部(ICC = 0.83 ~ 0.94)和手腕(ICC = 0.88 ~ 0.97)部位的相对信度极佳,而TSP在手部(ICC = 0.80 ~ 0.90)和腰背部(ICC = 0.73 ~ 0.89)部位的相对信度极佳。总的来说,2次和3次测量分别优化了TSP和PPT的绝对可靠性和相对可靠性。讨论:在CLBP患者中,PPT和TSP在腰背部和手部部位的会话内可靠性通常很好。我们建议使用3个测量PPT和2个测量TSP来优化可靠性。当测试疼痛的下背部区域PPT时,建议谨慎,因为在测试和重新测试之间存在系统性差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Within-Session Test-Retest Reliability of Pressure Pain Threshold and Mechanical Temporal Summation in Chronic Low Back Pain.

Objectives: To determine the absolute and relative within-session test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) at the low back and the forearm in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and to test the impact of different sequences of measurements on reliability metrics.

Materials and methods: Twenty-eight adults with CLBP were recruited. Relative (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and coefficient of variation) and absolute reliability (standard error of measurement and minimal detectable changes) were quantified at 4 sites (back: sacrum and lumbar erector spinae; wrist: hand dorsum and wrist flexors) for PPT and 2 sites (hand and low back) for TSP, for various sequences of measurements.

Results: Systematic differences were found between within test and retest for most PPT sequences at the lumbar erector spinae site and 1 TSP sequence (1-2-3) at back and hand sites, precluding reliability analyses for these data. Within-session PPT relative reliability was excellent at low back (ICC = 0.83 to 0.94) and wrist (ICC = 0.88 to 0.97) sites, whereas TSP showed good to excellent reliability at hand (ICC = 0.80 to 0.90) and low back (ICC = 0.73 to 0.89). In general, 2 and 3 measurements optimized absolute and relative reliability for TSP and PPT, respectively.

Discussion: Within-session reliability was generally excellent for PPT and TSP at the low back and hand sites among individuals with CLBP. We recommend using 3 measurements for PPT and 2 for TSP to optimize reliability. Caution is recommended when testing PPT of the painful lower back area since a systematic difference was present between the test and retest.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
×
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