OBJECTIVE: On the basis of our experience in the application of the mechanical algometer and a number of pilot experiments, we speculated that 0.1- and 0.01-cm(2) probes might improve the measurement of mechanical pain sensitivity relative to the conventional 1-cm(2) probe. Here, we examined the accuracy, feasibility, and applicability of these probes in detecting the mechanical pain sensitivity. DESIGN: Mechanical pain threshold and tolerance tests were performed on subjects using the three probes of 1, 0.1, and 0.01 cm(2) in random order. We compared the application of these probes. SETTING: The study was set at the Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. SUBJECTS: Fifty healthy male Han Chinese subjects were recruited. OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared the qualities of stimulus-evoked pain, test stability, the measuring time, the subjects' acceptance level of the procedure, the validity of pain measurement, and the arduousness of the task for the investigator among the three different size probes. RESULTS: Compared with the conventional 1-cm(2) probe, the 0.01- and 0.1-cm(2) probes resulted in the subjects responding to stimulus-evoked pain more quickly, accurately, and consistently, and also made the measurement more comfortable for investigators. Up to 80% of the subjects reported the pain quality as a pricking sensation when the 0.01-cm(2) probe was used. CONCLUSION: The use of the 0.1-cm(2) probe might be more suitable as an optimized method for the detection of pressure pain sensitivity in clinical studies. In addition, the 0.01-cm(2) probe could potentially serve as an alternative to the weighted needle pinprick, providing continuous quantizing detection for pricking pain sensitivity. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: On the basis of our experience in the application of the mechanical algometer and a number of pilot experiments, we speculated that 0.1- and 0.01-cm(2) probes might improve the measurement of mechanical pain sensitivity relative to the conventional 1-cm(2) probe. Here, we examined the accuracy, feasibility, and applicability of these probes in detecting the mechanical pain sensitivity. DESIGN: Mechanical pain threshold and tolerance tests were performed on subjects using the three probes of 1, 0.1, and 0.01 cm(2) in random order. We compared the application of these probes. SETTING: The study was set at the Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. SUBJECTS: Fifty healthy male Han Chinese subjects were recruited. OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared the qualities of stimulus-evoked pain, test stability, the measuring time, the subjects' acceptance level of the procedure, the validity of pain measurement, and the arduousness of the task for the investigator among the three different size probes. RESULTS: Compared with the conventional 1-cm(2) probe, the 0.01- and 0.1-cm(2) probes resulted in the subjects responding to stimulus-evoked pain more quickly, accurately, and consistently, and also made the measurement more comfortable for investigators. Up to 80% of the subjects reported the pain quality as a pricking sensation when the 0.01-cm(2) probe was used. CONCLUSION: The use of the 0.1-cm(2) probe might be more suitable as an optimized method for the detection of pressure pain sensitivity in clinical studies. In addition, the 0.01-cm(2) probe could potentially serve as an alternative to the weighted needle pinprick, providing continuous quantizing detection for pricking pain sensitivity. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.