The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis
Abstract. Introduction:. Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) modalities used to assess central pain mechanisms require different protocols in people with different musculoskeletal conditions. Objectives:. We aimed to explore the possible effects of musculoskeletal diagnosis and test site on QST inter...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | PAIN Reports |
| Online Access: | http://journals.lww.com/painrpts/fulltext/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001102 |
| _version_ | 1797646814306893824 |
|---|---|
| author | Sophia M. Brady Vasileios Georgopoulos Jet J.C.S. Veldhuijzen van Zanten Joan L. Duda George S. Metsios George D. Kitas Sally A.M. Fenton David A. Walsh Daniel F. McWilliams |
| author_facet | Sophia M. Brady Vasileios Georgopoulos Jet J.C.S. Veldhuijzen van Zanten Joan L. Duda George S. Metsios George D. Kitas Sally A.M. Fenton David A. Walsh Daniel F. McWilliams |
| author_sort | Sophia M. Brady |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract. Introduction:. Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) modalities used to assess central pain mechanisms require different protocols in people with different musculoskeletal conditions.
Objectives:. We aimed to explore the possible effects of musculoskeletal diagnosis and test site on QST interrater and test–retest reliability.
Methods:. The study included participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 18; QST conducted on lower leg) and low back pain (LBP, n = 25; QST conducted on forearm), plus 45 healthy control participants (n = 20 QST on lower leg and n = 25 QST on forearm). Test–retest reliability was assessed from QST conducted 1 to 3 weeks apart. Quantitative sensory testing modalities used were pressure pain detection threshold (PPT) at a site distant to tissue pathology, temporal summation (TS), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Temporal summation was calculated as difference or ratio of single and repeated punctate stimuli and unconditioned thresholds for CPM used single or mean of multiple PPTs. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were compared between different subgroups.
Results:. High to very high reliability was found for all assessments of PPT and TS across anatomical sites (lower leg and forearm) and participants (healthy, RA, and LBP) (ICC ≥ 0.77 for PPT and ICC ≥ 0.76 for TS). Reliability was higher when TS was calculated as a difference rather than a ratio. Conditioned pain modulation showed no to moderate reliability (ICC = 0.01–0.64) that was similar between leg or forearm, and between healthy people and those with RA or LBP.
Conclusion:. PPT and TS are transferable tools to quantify pain sensitivity at different testing sites in different musculoskeletal diagnoses. Low apparent reliability of CPM protocols might indicate minute-to-minute dynamic pain modulation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T15:07:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ce9a62ef768a4e67aca4870df6c2a469 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2471-2531 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T15:07:11Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PAIN Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-ce9a62ef768a4e67aca4870df6c2a4692023-10-30T03:46:13ZengWolters KluwerPAIN Reports2471-25312023-12-0186e110210.1097/PR9.0000000000001102202312000-00001The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritisSophia M. Brady0Vasileios Georgopoulos1Jet J.C.S. Veldhuijzen van Zanten2Joan L. Duda3George S. Metsios4George D. Kitas5Sally A.M. Fenton6David A. Walsh7Daniel F. McWilliams8a School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdomd Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Advanced Pain Discovery Platform & Academic Rheumatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdoma School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdoma School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdomb Rheumatology Department, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdoma School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdoma School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdomd Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Advanced Pain Discovery Platform & Academic Rheumatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdomd Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Advanced Pain Discovery Platform & Academic Rheumatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United KingdomAbstract. Introduction:. Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) modalities used to assess central pain mechanisms require different protocols in people with different musculoskeletal conditions. Objectives:. We aimed to explore the possible effects of musculoskeletal diagnosis and test site on QST interrater and test–retest reliability. Methods:. The study included participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 18; QST conducted on lower leg) and low back pain (LBP, n = 25; QST conducted on forearm), plus 45 healthy control participants (n = 20 QST on lower leg and n = 25 QST on forearm). Test–retest reliability was assessed from QST conducted 1 to 3 weeks apart. Quantitative sensory testing modalities used were pressure pain detection threshold (PPT) at a site distant to tissue pathology, temporal summation (TS), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Temporal summation was calculated as difference or ratio of single and repeated punctate stimuli and unconditioned thresholds for CPM used single or mean of multiple PPTs. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were compared between different subgroups. Results:. High to very high reliability was found for all assessments of PPT and TS across anatomical sites (lower leg and forearm) and participants (healthy, RA, and LBP) (ICC ≥ 0.77 for PPT and ICC ≥ 0.76 for TS). Reliability was higher when TS was calculated as a difference rather than a ratio. Conditioned pain modulation showed no to moderate reliability (ICC = 0.01–0.64) that was similar between leg or forearm, and between healthy people and those with RA or LBP. Conclusion:. PPT and TS are transferable tools to quantify pain sensitivity at different testing sites in different musculoskeletal diagnoses. Low apparent reliability of CPM protocols might indicate minute-to-minute dynamic pain modulation.http://journals.lww.com/painrpts/fulltext/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001102 |
| spellingShingle | Sophia M. Brady Vasileios Georgopoulos Jet J.C.S. Veldhuijzen van Zanten Joan L. Duda George S. Metsios George D. Kitas Sally A.M. Fenton David A. Walsh Daniel F. McWilliams The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis PAIN Reports |
| title | The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis |
| title_full | The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis |
| title_fullStr | The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis |
| title_full_unstemmed | The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis |
| title_short | The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis |
| title_sort | interrater and test retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis |
| url | http://journals.lww.com/painrpts/fulltext/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001102 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sophiambrady theinterraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT vasileiosgeorgopoulos theinterraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT jetjcsveldhuijzenvanzanten theinterraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT joanlduda theinterraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT georgesmetsios theinterraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT georgedkitas theinterraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT sallyamfenton theinterraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT davidawalsh theinterraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT danielfmcwilliams theinterraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT sophiambrady interraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT vasileiosgeorgopoulos interraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT jetjcsveldhuijzenvanzanten interraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT joanlduda interraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT georgesmetsios interraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT georgedkitas interraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT sallyamfenton interraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT davidawalsh interraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis AT danielfmcwilliams interraterandtestretestreliabilityof3modalitiesofquantitativesensorytestinginhealthyadultsandpeoplewithchroniclowbackpainorrheumatoidarthritis |