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

10Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bellosta-López, P., Doménech-García, V., Palsson, T. S., Herrero, P., & Christensen, S. W. M. (2023). Long-term consistency of clinical sensory testing measures for pain assessment. Korean Journal of Pain, 36(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.23011

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