Literature DB >> 18067137

Comparison of perception threshold testing and thermal-vibratory testing.

Lior Lowenstein1, Kathy Jesse, Kimberly Kenton.   

Abstract

Current perception threshold testing (CPT) is thought to selectively activate and measure three types of afferent nerves. However, it has not been standardized or compared with better-studied methods of sensory testing. Our objectives were to determine the relationship between CPT (2000 Hz, 250 Hz, 5 Hz) and quantitative sensory testing (QST) using vibratory and heat thresholds, and to assess the test-retest reliability of both methods. Twenty-seven healthy women were enrolled. Each woman underwent CPT and QST on the volar part of the arm. Sensory thresholds were determined by the method of limits; 20 women underwent repeated CPT testing and QST after 1 week to determine test-retest reliability. Thermal thresholds were moderately correlated with CPT at 5 Hz (rho = 0.49, P = 0.009), as were vibratory thresholds and CPT at 2000 Hz (rho = 0.5, P = 0.008). In contrast to CPT measurements, warm and vibratory and cold thresholds were correlated 1 week apart (rho = 0.73, P = 0.0001; rho = 0.83, P = 0.0001; and rho = 0.47, P = 0.0037, respectively). CPT testing and QST seem to be measuring similar afferent nerve-fiber populations, but QST has better test-retest reliability than CPT testing, justifying its role in clinical or research studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18067137     DOI: 10.1002/mus.20934

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Muscle Nerve        ISSN: 0148-639X            Impact factor:   3.217


  7 in total

1.  Reliability of quantitative sudomotor axon reflex testing and quantitative sensory testing in neuropathy of impaired glucose regulation.

Authors:  Amanda Peltier; A Gordon Smith; James W Russell; Kiran Sheikh; Billie Bixby; James Howard; Jonathan Goldstein; Yanna Song; Lily Wang; Eva L Feldman; J Robinson Singleton
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.217

2.  Comparison between sensory testing modalities for the evaluation of afferent nerve functioning in the genital area.

Authors:  Lior Lowenstein; Carely Davis; Kathy Jesse; Ramon Durazo-Arvizu; Kimberly Kenton
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-10-16

Review 3.  Can quantitative sensory testing move us closer to mechanism-based pain management?

Authors:  Yenisel Cruz-Almeida; Roger B Fillingim
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 3.750

4.  Quantitative Sensory Testing and Current Perception Threshold Testing in Patients With Chronic Pain Following Lower Extremity Fracture.

Authors:  Mari A Griffioen; Joel D Greenspan; Meg Johantgen; Kathryn Von Rueden; Robert V O'Toole; Susan G Dorsey; Cynthia L Renn
Journal:  Biol Res Nurs       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 2.522

5.  Urethral sensation following reconstructive pelvic surgery.

Authors:  M G Abernethy; C Davis; L Lowenstein; E R Mueller; L Brubaker; K Kenton
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  How stable are quantitative sensory testing measurements over time? Report on 10-week reliability and agreement of results in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Helen Nothnagel; Christian Puta; Thomas Lehmann; Philipp Baumbach; Martha B Menard; Brunhild Gabriel; Holger H W Gabriel; Thomas Weiss; Frauke Musial
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 3.133

7.  Reproducibility of a battery of human evoked pain models to detect pharmacological effects of analgesic drugs.

Authors:  Pieter S Siebenga; Guido van Amerongen; Pieter Okkerse; William S Denney; Pinky Dua; Richard P Butt; Justin L Hay; Geert J Groeneveld
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 3.931

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.