Evaluating sensory profiles in nociplastic chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional validation study

6Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

Background: Sensory profiles (SPs) may be useful in classifying patients based on sensory sensitivity and behavioral responses to stimuli to develop personalized treatments for nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). The Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP) identifies four sensitivity and behavioral response-related quadrants: Sensory Sensitive, Sensation Avoiding, Low Registration, and Sensation Seeking. It is an appropriate questionnaire for evaluating SPs; however, it has not been validated in CLBP. Objectives: To assess the internal consistency, test–retest reliability, agreement, and construct validity of the AASP in a CLBP population with nociplastic pain in primary care physiotherapy. Design: Two evaluations were performed at a 2-week interval in this non-experimental cross-sectional study. Participants: Patients with CLBP. Methods: Questionnaires were used to compare outcomes with the AASP. Reliability was evaluated by assessing internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Construct validity was evaluated in response to the a priori hypothesis. Results: Ninety patients with CLBP were included. Internal consistency was excellent for all SPs (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.91–0.92). Test–retest reliability Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC (3,2)) 0.82–0.87, for the SPs (95% CI 0.74–0.91, p< .001). Construct validity correlated positively with Low Registration, Sensory Sensitive, and Sensation Avoiding and negatively with Sensation Seeking. Conclusion: The AASP is suitable for evaluating SPs in primary care CLBP patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gräper, P. J., Clark, J. R., Thompson, B. L., & Hallegraeff, J. M. (2022). Evaluating sensory profiles in nociplastic chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional validation study. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 38(10), 1508–1518. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2020.1839987

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free