BACKGROUND: The cold pressor task (CPT) was originally developed as a clinically indicative cardiovascular test, and quantifies vascular response and pulse excitability when a subject's hand is immersed into ice water. Since the test procedure results in a gradually increasing cold pain, the CPT has been widely used as a nociceptive stimulus in experimental studies on adults and children. AIM: To evaluate the test-retest stability of response patterns using the CPT as a measure of pain threshold and pain tolerance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present study, sixty-one undergraduate students received painful stimulation using the CPT either at 4°C or 6°C. Measurements of pain threshold, pain tolerance and pain intensity ratings using the short form of the McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), were derived. The assessment was repeated twice over an interval of 2 weeks. Test-Retest stability was assessed within a three-layered approach, using ANOVAs, interclass correlation coefficients and standard error of the mean. A Bland-Altman analysis was also performed. Possible predictors of pain threshold and pain tolerance were assessed using random effect panel regression models. RESULTS: No significant differences emerged as a function of temperature (4°C or 6°C) on pain threshold, pain tolerance, and pain ratings. Environmental variables (room temperature and humidity) show no impact on measures of pain threshold and pain tolerance. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous findings, regression analysis reveals that age is significantly associated with pain tolerance. The CPT procedure shows excellent 2 week test-retest stability to assess pain threshold and pain tolerance within a student population.
BACKGROUND: The cold pressor task (CPT) was originally developed as a clinically indicative cardiovascular test, and quantifies vascular response and pulse excitability when a subject's hand is immersed into ice water. Since the test procedure results in a gradually increasing cold pain, the CPT has been widely used as a nociceptive stimulus in experimental studies on adults and children. AIM: To evaluate the test-retest stability of response patterns using the CPT as a measure of pain threshold and pain tolerance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present study, sixty-one undergraduate students received painful stimulation using the CPT either at 4°C or 6°C. Measurements of pain threshold, pain tolerance and pain intensity ratings using the short form of the McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), were derived. The assessment was repeated twice over an interval of 2 weeks. Test-Retest stability was assessed within a three-layered approach, using ANOVAs, interclass correlation coefficients and standard error of the mean. A Bland-Altman analysis was also performed. Possible predictors of pain threshold and pain tolerance were assessed using random effect panel regression models. RESULTS: No significant differences emerged as a function of temperature (4°C or 6°C) on pain threshold, pain tolerance, and pain ratings. Environmental variables (room temperature and humidity) show no impact on measures of pain threshold and pain tolerance. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous findings, regression analysis reveals that age is significantly associated with pain tolerance. The CPT procedure shows excellent 2 week test-retest stability to assess pain threshold and pain tolerance within a student population.
Authors: Julian Koenig; Lena Rinnewitz; Marco Warth; Thomas K Hillecke; Romuald Brunner; Franz Resch; Michael Kaess Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Andrew S Huhn; Eric C Strain; George E Bigelow; Michael T Smith; Robert R Edwards; D Andrew Tompkins Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Roi Treister; Christopher S Nielsen; Audun Stubhaug; John T Farrar; Dorit Pud; Shlomo Sawilowsky; Anne Louise Oaklander Journal: J Pain Date: 2015-03-20 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Andrew J Furman; Mariya Prokhorenko; Michael L Keaser; Jing Zhang; Shuo Chen; Ali Mazaheri; David A Seminowicz Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Timothy J Meeker; Anne-Christine Schmid; Michael L Keaser; Shariq A Khan; Rao P Gullapalli; Susan G Dorsey; Joel D Greenspan; David A Seminowicz Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 7.400