定量感官测试--从工作台到床边。

International review of neurobiology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.011
Sam Hughes, Jan Vollert, Roy Freeman, Julia Forstenpointner
{"title":"定量感官测试--从工作台到床边。","authors":"Sam Hughes, Jan Vollert, Roy Freeman, Julia Forstenpointner","doi":"10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The methodology of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) comprises standardized testing procedures, which provide information of the integrity of the somatosensory nervous system. Over the years, different protocols have been established, which utilize similar but distinct testing procedures. They pursue the same overall objective to identify loss or gain of function of the respective sensory parameter to better understand the degree of abnormal nervous function and thereby improve patient care in the long-term. Laboratory-based QST protocols, which apply highly standardized testing procedures in pre-defined order and body regions, are considered as the gold standard in sensory testing. However, those protocols often require specifically trained personal, high equipment investment, and are time consuming. Thus, in recent years several attempts have been made to simplify testing protocols as well as reduce high costs of testing equipment such as thermal probe systems. These attempts have culminated in an array of sensory bedside testing protocols subserving the need for protocols that are easy to implement in and provide a standardized assessment within clinical trials. While laboratory and bedside QST that focus on static responses of single stimuli, protocols for testing dynamic QST focus on the functional response to pain also exist. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is often applied, which offers the ability to study endogenous inhibition of pain. All of these mentioned methodologies are considered as psychophysical measures and thus rely heavily on the cooperation of the patient or participant. In this chapter we provide an overview of QST along three main lines: (i) laboratory QST, (ii) bedside QST and (iii) dynamic QST. In addition, we discuss advantages and pitfalls of each modality. While we discuss along these lines, it should be noted that methodologies are overlapping: some bedside tests are similar or identical to lab-QST, many lab-QST protocols include a dynamic component, and assessment of dynamic QST requires to start with static assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":94058,"journal":{"name":"International review of neurobiology","volume":"179 ","pages":"67-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative Sensory Testing - From bench to bedside.\",\"authors\":\"Sam Hughes, Jan Vollert, Roy Freeman, Julia Forstenpointner\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The methodology of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) comprises standardized testing procedures, which provide information of the integrity of the somatosensory nervous system. Over the years, different protocols have been established, which utilize similar but distinct testing procedures. They pursue the same overall objective to identify loss or gain of function of the respective sensory parameter to better understand the degree of abnormal nervous function and thereby improve patient care in the long-term. Laboratory-based QST protocols, which apply highly standardized testing procedures in pre-defined order and body regions, are considered as the gold standard in sensory testing. However, those protocols often require specifically trained personal, high equipment investment, and are time consuming. Thus, in recent years several attempts have been made to simplify testing protocols as well as reduce high costs of testing equipment such as thermal probe systems. These attempts have culminated in an array of sensory bedside testing protocols subserving the need for protocols that are easy to implement in and provide a standardized assessment within clinical trials. While laboratory and bedside QST that focus on static responses of single stimuli, protocols for testing dynamic QST focus on the functional response to pain also exist. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is often applied, which offers the ability to study endogenous inhibition of pain. All of these mentioned methodologies are considered as psychophysical measures and thus rely heavily on the cooperation of the patient or participant. In this chapter we provide an overview of QST along three main lines: (i) laboratory QST, (ii) bedside QST and (iii) dynamic QST. In addition, we discuss advantages and pitfalls of each modality. While we discuss along these lines, it should be noted that methodologies are overlapping: some bedside tests are similar or identical to lab-QST, many lab-QST protocols include a dynamic component, and assessment of dynamic QST requires to start with static assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International review of neurobiology\",\"volume\":\"179 \",\"pages\":\"67-90\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International review of neurobiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International review of neurobiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

定量感觉测试(QST)方法包括标准化的测试程序,可提供有关躯体感觉神经系统完整性的信息。多年来,已经制定了不同的方案,这些方案采用相似但不同的测试程序。它们追求的总体目标是相同的,即确定相应感觉参数的功能丧失或增强,以更好地了解神经功能异常的程度,从而改善对患者的长期护理。以实验室为基础的 QST 方案按照预先确定的顺序和身体区域采用高度标准化的测试程序,被视为感觉测试的黄金标准。然而,这些方案往往需要经过专门培训的人员、高昂的设备投资和耗费的时间。因此,近年来人们开始尝试简化测试程序,并降低热探针系统等测试设备的高昂成本。这些尝试最终产生了一系列床旁感官测试方案,以满足临床试验中对易于实施和提供标准化评估的方案的需求。实验室和床旁 QST 主要针对单一刺激的静态反应,而动态 QST 测试协议则侧重于对疼痛的功能反应。条件性疼痛调节(CPM)经常被应用,它提供了研究内源性疼痛抑制的能力。所有这些方法都被视为心理物理测量方法,因此在很大程度上依赖于患者或参与者的配合。在本章中,我们将从三个方面概述 QST:(i) 实验室 QST、(ii) 床边 QST 和 (iii) 动态 QST。此外,我们还讨论了每种模式的优势和缺陷。在讨论的同时,需要注意的是方法上的重叠:一些床旁测试与实验室 QST 相似或相同,许多实验室 QST 方案都包含动态部分,而动态 QST 的评估需要从静态评估开始。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantitative Sensory Testing - From bench to bedside.

The methodology of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) comprises standardized testing procedures, which provide information of the integrity of the somatosensory nervous system. Over the years, different protocols have been established, which utilize similar but distinct testing procedures. They pursue the same overall objective to identify loss or gain of function of the respective sensory parameter to better understand the degree of abnormal nervous function and thereby improve patient care in the long-term. Laboratory-based QST protocols, which apply highly standardized testing procedures in pre-defined order and body regions, are considered as the gold standard in sensory testing. However, those protocols often require specifically trained personal, high equipment investment, and are time consuming. Thus, in recent years several attempts have been made to simplify testing protocols as well as reduce high costs of testing equipment such as thermal probe systems. These attempts have culminated in an array of sensory bedside testing protocols subserving the need for protocols that are easy to implement in and provide a standardized assessment within clinical trials. While laboratory and bedside QST that focus on static responses of single stimuli, protocols for testing dynamic QST focus on the functional response to pain also exist. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is often applied, which offers the ability to study endogenous inhibition of pain. All of these mentioned methodologies are considered as psychophysical measures and thus rely heavily on the cooperation of the patient or participant. In this chapter we provide an overview of QST along three main lines: (i) laboratory QST, (ii) bedside QST and (iii) dynamic QST. In addition, we discuss advantages and pitfalls of each modality. While we discuss along these lines, it should be noted that methodologies are overlapping: some bedside tests are similar or identical to lab-QST, many lab-QST protocols include a dynamic component, and assessment of dynamic QST requires to start with static assessments.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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