Fábio Carlos Lucas de Oliveira, Camille Cossette, Catherine Mailloux, Timothy H Wideman, Louis-David Beaulieu, Hugo Massé-Alarie
{"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, Camille Cossette, Catherine Mailloux, Timothy H Wideman, Louis-David Beaulieu, 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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
