Literature DB >> 21237569

Test-retest and interobserver reliability of quantitative sensory testing according to the protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): a multi-centre study.

Christian Geber1, Thomas Klein, Shahnaz Azad, Frank Birklein, Janne Gierthmühlen, Volker Huge, Meike Lauchart, Dorothee Nitzsche, Maike Stengel, Michael Valet, Ralf Baron, Christoph Maier, Thomas Tölle, Rolf-Detlef Treede.   

Abstract

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is an instrument to assess positive and negative sensory signs, helping to identify mechanisms underlying pathologic pain conditions. In this study, we evaluated the test-retest reliability (TR-R) and the interobserver reliability (IO-R) of QST in patients with sensory disturbances of different etiologies. In 4 centres, 60 patients (37 male and 23 female, 56.4±1.9years) with lesions or diseases of the somatosensory system were included. QST comprised 13 parameters including detection and pain thresholds for thermal and mechanical stimuli. QST was performed in the clinically most affected test area and a less or unaffected control area in a morning and an afternoon session on 2 consecutive days by examiner pairs (4 QSTs/patient). For both, TR-R and IO-R, there were high correlations (r=0.80-0.93) at the affected test area, except for wind-up ratio (TR-R: r=0.67; IO-R: r=0.56) and paradoxical heat sensations (TR-R: r=0.35; IO-R: r=0.44). Mean IO-R (r=0.83, 31% unexplained variance) was slightly lower than TR-R (r=0.86, 26% unexplained variance, P<.05); the difference in variance amounted to 5%. There were no differences between study centres. In a subgroup with an unaffected control area (n=43), reliabilities were significantly better in the test area (TR-R: r=0.86; IO-R: r=0.83) than in the control area (TR-R: r=0.79; IO-R: r=0.71, each P<.01), suggesting that disease-related systematic variance enhances reliability of QST. We conclude that standardized QST performed by trained examiners is a valuable diagnostic instrument with good test-retest and interobserver reliability within 2days. With standardized training, observer bias is much lower than random variance. Quantitative sensory testing performed by trained examiners is a valuable diagnostic instrument with good interobserver and test-retest reliability for use in patients with sensory disturbances of different etiologies to help identify mechanisms of neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain.
Copyright © 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21237569     DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  77 in total

Review 1.  Quantitative sensory testing of neuropathic pain patients: potential mechanistic and therapeutic implications.

Authors:  Doreen B Pfau; Christian Geber; Frank Birklein; Rolf-Detlef Treede
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2012-06

2.  Pain: Quantitative sensory testing--a tool for daily practice?

Authors:  Frank Birklein; Claudia Sommer
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 42.937

3.  Multicenter trial of the proficiency of smart quantitative sensation tests.

Authors:  Peter J Dyck; Barbara Argyros; James W Russell; Linde E Gahnstrom; Susan Nalepa; James W Albers; Karen A Lodermeier; Andrew J Zafft; P James B Dyck; Christopher J Klein; William J Litchy; Jenny L Davies; Rickey E Carter; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 3.217

Review 4.  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

5.  Perceptual distortion of the tongue by lingual nerve block and topical application of capsaicin in healthy women.

Authors:  Mika Honda; Lene Baad-Hansen; Takashi Iida; Lilja Kristín Dagsdóttir; Osamu Komiyama; Misao Kawara; Peter Svensson
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 6.  Does central sensitization help explain idiopathic overactive bladder?

Authors:  W Stuart Reynolds; Roger Dmochowski; Alan Wein; Stephen Bruehl
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 7.  Neuropathic pain: is quantitative sensory testing helpful?

Authors:  Elena K Krumova; Christian Geber; Andrea Westermann; Christoph Maier
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.810

8.  A Protocol of Manual Tests to Measure Sensation and Pain in Humans.

Authors:  Matthew Kostek; Anna Polaski; Benedict Kolber; Austin Ramsey; Alexander Kranjec; Kimberly Szucs
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 9.  Assessment of Chronic Pain: Domains, Methods, and Mechanisms.

Authors:  Roger B Fillingim; John D Loeser; Ralf Baron; Robert R Edwards
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.820

10.  Multifactorial assessment of measurement errors affecting intraoral quantitative sensory testing reliability.

Authors:  Estephan J Moana-Filho; Aurelio A Alonso; Flavia P Kapos; Vladimir Leon-Salazar; Scott H Durand; James S Hodges; Donald R Nixdorf
Journal:  Scand J Pain       Date:  2017-05-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.