M. Izumi, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Ryota Saito, S. Oda, K. Petersen, L. Arendt-Nielsen, M. Ikeuchi
{"title":"使用简易床边工具箱(QuantiPain)检测膝骨关节炎患者疼痛促进和抑制机制的改变","authors":"M. Izumi, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Ryota Saito, S. Oda, K. Petersen, L. Arendt-Nielsen, M. Ikeuchi","doi":"10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. A simple bedside quantitative sensory testing tool kit demonstrated acceptable reliability and assessment validity for detecting altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with painful osteoarthritis. Abstract Purpose: Altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms have been recognized as an important manifestation in patients with chronic pain, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) can act as a proxy for this process. We have recently developed a simple bedside QST tool kit (QuantiPain) for more clinical use. The purpose of this study was to investigate its test–retest reliability and to evaluate its validity compared with the laboratory-based QST protocols in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: QuantiPain consists of 3 items: “pressure algometer” (for pressure pain thresholds [PPTs]), “pinprick” (for temporal summation of pain [TSP]), and “conditioning clamp” (for conditioned pain modulation [CPM]). In experiment-A, intrarater and interrater test–retest reliabilities were investigated in 21 young healthy subjects by using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In experiment-B, 40 unilateral painful patients with OA and 40 age-matched, healthy control subjects were included to compare the bedside tool kit against the computerized pressure algometry. Results: In experiment-A, excellent to moderate intrarater and interrater reliabilities were achieved in PPT and TSP (ICC: 0.60–0.92) while the agreements of CPM were good to poor (ICC: 0.37–0.80). In experiment-B, localized and widespread decrease of PPT, facilitated TSP, and impaired CPM was found by using the bedside tool kit in patients with OA compared with controls (P < 0.05). The data were significantly correlated with the established laboratory-based tools (R = 0.281–0.848, P < 0.05). Conclusion: QuantiPain demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability and assessment validity with the sensitivity to separate patients with painful OA from controls, which has a potential to create more practical approach for quantifying altered pain mechanisms in clinical settings.","PeriodicalId":52189,"journal":{"name":"Pain Reports","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Detection of altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with knee osteoarthritis by using a simple bedside tool kit (QuantiPain)\",\"authors\":\"M. Izumi, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Ryota Saito, S. Oda, K. Petersen, L. Arendt-Nielsen, M. Ikeuchi\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. A simple bedside quantitative sensory testing tool kit demonstrated acceptable reliability and assessment validity for detecting altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with painful osteoarthritis. Abstract Purpose: Altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms have been recognized as an important manifestation in patients with chronic pain, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) can act as a proxy for this process. We have recently developed a simple bedside QST tool kit (QuantiPain) for more clinical use. The purpose of this study was to investigate its test–retest reliability and to evaluate its validity compared with the laboratory-based QST protocols in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: QuantiPain consists of 3 items: “pressure algometer” (for pressure pain thresholds [PPTs]), “pinprick” (for temporal summation of pain [TSP]), and “conditioning clamp” (for conditioned pain modulation [CPM]). In experiment-A, intrarater and interrater test–retest reliabilities were investigated in 21 young healthy subjects by using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In experiment-B, 40 unilateral painful patients with OA and 40 age-matched, healthy control subjects were included to compare the bedside tool kit against the computerized pressure algometry. Results: In experiment-A, excellent to moderate intrarater and interrater reliabilities were achieved in PPT and TSP (ICC: 0.60–0.92) while the agreements of CPM were good to poor (ICC: 0.37–0.80). In experiment-B, localized and widespread decrease of PPT, facilitated TSP, and impaired CPM was found by using the bedside tool kit in patients with OA compared with controls (P < 0.05). The data were significantly correlated with the established laboratory-based tools (R = 0.281–0.848, P < 0.05). Conclusion: QuantiPain demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability and assessment validity with the sensitivity to separate patients with painful OA from controls, which has a potential to create more practical approach for quantifying altered pain mechanisms in clinical settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Detection of altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with knee osteoarthritis by using a simple bedside tool kit (QuantiPain)
Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. A simple bedside quantitative sensory testing tool kit demonstrated acceptable reliability and assessment validity for detecting altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with painful osteoarthritis. Abstract Purpose: Altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms have been recognized as an important manifestation in patients with chronic pain, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) can act as a proxy for this process. We have recently developed a simple bedside QST tool kit (QuantiPain) for more clinical use. The purpose of this study was to investigate its test–retest reliability and to evaluate its validity compared with the laboratory-based QST protocols in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: QuantiPain consists of 3 items: “pressure algometer” (for pressure pain thresholds [PPTs]), “pinprick” (for temporal summation of pain [TSP]), and “conditioning clamp” (for conditioned pain modulation [CPM]). In experiment-A, intrarater and interrater test–retest reliabilities were investigated in 21 young healthy subjects by using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In experiment-B, 40 unilateral painful patients with OA and 40 age-matched, healthy control subjects were included to compare the bedside tool kit against the computerized pressure algometry. Results: In experiment-A, excellent to moderate intrarater and interrater reliabilities were achieved in PPT and TSP (ICC: 0.60–0.92) while the agreements of CPM were good to poor (ICC: 0.37–0.80). In experiment-B, localized and widespread decrease of PPT, facilitated TSP, and impaired CPM was found by using the bedside tool kit in patients with OA compared with controls (P < 0.05). The data were significantly correlated with the established laboratory-based tools (R = 0.281–0.848, P < 0.05). Conclusion: QuantiPain demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability and assessment validity with the sensitivity to separate patients with painful OA from controls, which has a potential to create more practical approach for quantifying altered pain mechanisms in clinical settings.