Estephan J Moana-Filho1, Aurelio A Alonso2, Flavia P Kapos3, Vladimir Leon-Salazar4, Scott H Durand5, James S Hodges6, Donald R Nixdorf7. 1. Division of TMD and Orofacial Pain, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 6-320d Moos Tower, 515 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States. Electronic address: moana004@umn.edu. 2. Center for Translational Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: aurelio.alonso@duke.edu. 3. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, United States; Department of Oral Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, United States. Electronic address: kapos001@umn.edu. 4. Division of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, United States. Electronic address: leons002@umn.edu. 5. Private Dental Practice, 115 East Main Street, Wabasha, MN, 55981, United States. Electronic address: drdurand@wabashadentistry.com. 6. Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, United States. Electronic address: hodge003@umn.edu. 7. Division of TMD and Orofacial Pain, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 6-320d Moos Tower, 515 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States; Department of Neurology, Medical School, University of Minnesota, United States; HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, United States. Electronic address: nixdorf@umn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (AIMS): Measurement error of intraoral quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been assessed using traditional methods for reliability, such as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Most studies reporting QST reliability focused on assessing one source of measurement error at a time, e.g., inter- or intra-examiner (test-retest) reliabilities and employed two examiners to test inter-examiner reliability. The present study used a complex design with multiple examiners with the aim of assessing the reliability of intraoral QST taking account of multiple sources of error simultaneously. METHODS: Four examiners of varied experience assessed 12 healthy participants in two visits separated by 48h. Seven QST procedures to determine sensory thresholds were used: cold detection (CDT), warmth detection (WDT), cold pain (CPT), heat pain (HPT), mechanical detection (MDT), mechanical pain (MPT) and pressure pain (PPT). Mixed linear models were used to estimate variance components for reliability assessment; dependability coefficients were used to simulate alternative test scenarios. RESULTS: Most intraoral QST variability arose from differences between participants (8.8-30.5%), differences between visits within participant (4.6-52.8%), and error (13.3-28.3%). For QST procedures other than CDT and MDT, increasing the number of visits with a single examiner performing the procedures would lead to improved dependability (dependability coefficient ranges: single visit, four examiners=0.12-0.54; four visits, single examiner=0.27-0.68). A wide range of reliabilities for QST procedures, as measured by ICCs, was noted for inter- (0.39-0.80) and intra-examiner (0.10-0.62) variation. CONCLUSION: Reliability of sensory testing can be better assessed by measuring multiple sources of error simultaneously instead of focusing on one source at a time. In experimental settings, large numbers of participants are needed to obtain accurate estimates of treatment effects based on QST measurements. This is different from clinical use, where variation between persons (the person main effect) is not a concern because clinical measurements are done on a single person. IMPLICATIONS: Future studies assessing sensory testing reliability in both clinical and experimental settings would benefit from routinely measuring multiple sources of error. The methods and results of this study can be used by clinical researchers to improve assessment of measurement error related to intraoral sensory testing. This should lead to improved resource allocation when designing studies that use intraoral quantitative sensory testing in clinical and experimental settings.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (AIMS): Measurement error of intraoral quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been assessed using traditional methods for reliability, such as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Most studies reporting QST reliability focused on assessing one source of measurement error at a time, e.g., inter- or intra-examiner (test-retest) reliabilities and employed two examiners to test inter-examiner reliability. The present study used a complex design with multiple examiners with the aim of assessing the reliability of intraoral QST taking account of multiple sources of error simultaneously. METHODS: Four examiners of varied experience assessed 12 healthy participants in two visits separated by 48h. Seven QST procedures to determine sensory thresholds were used: cold detection (CDT), warmth detection (WDT), cold pain (CPT), heat pain (HPT), mechanical detection (MDT), mechanical pain (MPT) and pressure pain (PPT). Mixed linear models were used to estimate variance components for reliability assessment; dependability coefficients were used to simulate alternative test scenarios. RESULTS: Most intraoral QST variability arose from differences between participants (8.8-30.5%), differences between visits within participant (4.6-52.8%), and error (13.3-28.3%). For QST procedures other than CDT and MDT, increasing the number of visits with a single examiner performing the procedures would lead to improved dependability (dependability coefficient ranges: single visit, four examiners=0.12-0.54; four visits, single examiner=0.27-0.68). A wide range of reliabilities for QST procedures, as measured by ICCs, was noted for inter- (0.39-0.80) and intra-examiner (0.10-0.62) variation. CONCLUSION: Reliability of sensory testing can be better assessed by measuring multiple sources of error simultaneously instead of focusing on one source at a time. In experimental settings, large numbers of participants are needed to obtain accurate estimates of treatment effects based on QST measurements. This is different from clinical use, where variation between persons (the person main effect) is not a concern because clinical measurements are done on a single person. IMPLICATIONS: Future studies assessing sensory testing reliability in both clinical and experimental settings would benefit from routinely measuring multiple sources of error. The methods and results of this study can be used by clinical researchers to improve assessment of measurement error related to intraoral sensory testing. This should lead to improved resource allocation when designing studies that use intraoral quantitative sensory testing in clinical and experimental settings.
Authors: Miroslav Misha Backonja; Nadine Attal; Ralf Baron; Didier Bouhassira; Mark Drangholt; Peter J Dyck; Robert R Edwards; Roy Freeman; Richard Gracely; Maija H Haanpaa; Per Hansson; Samar M Hatem; Elena K Krumova; Troels S Jensen; Christoph Maier; Gerard Mick; Andrew S Rice; Roman Rolke; Rolf-Detlef Treede; Jordi Serra; Thomas Toelle; Valeri Tugnoli; David Walk; Mark S Walalce; Mark Ware; David Yarnitsky; Dan Ziegler Journal: Pain Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: R Rolke; R Baron; C Maier; T R Tölle; - D R Treede; A Beyer; A Binder; N Birbaumer; F Birklein; I C Bötefür; S Braune; H Flor; V Huge; R Klug; G B Landwehrmeyer; W Magerl; C Maihöfner; C Rolko; C Schaub; A Scherens; T Sprenger; M Valet; B Wasserka Journal: Pain Date: 2006-05-11 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: P Svensson; L Baad-Hansen; M Pigg; T List; E Eliav; D Ettlin; A Michelotti; Y Tsukiyama; Y Matsuka; S K Jääskeläinen; G Essick; J D Greenspan; M Drangsholt Journal: J Oral Rehabil Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 3.837
Authors: Antonio Fallea; Rosa Zuccarello; Michele Roccella; Giuseppe Quatrosi; Serena Donadio; Luigi Vetri; Francesco Calì Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-03-10