Literature DB >> 34601615

Development of a Novel Brief Quantitative Sensory Testing Protocol That Integrates Static and Dynamic Pain Assessments: Test-Retest Performance in Healthy Adults.

Martin J De Vita1,2, Katherine Buckheit1,3, Christina E Gilmour1,4, Dezarie Moskal1, Stephen A Maisto1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Quantitative sensory testing is an expanding pain research domain with numerous clinical and research applications. There is a recognized need for brief reliable quantitative sensory testing protocols that enhance assessment feasibility. This study aimed to integrate static (pain threshold, tolerance, suprathreshold) and dynamic (conditioned pain modulation, offset analgesia, temporal summation) pain reactivity measures into a brief 20-minute protocol that uses a single portable device. The test-retest performance of this optimized protocol was evaluated.
DESIGN: Using a test-retest design, the brief quantitative sensory testing assessment was administered to participants on two occasions separated by exactly 7 days.
SETTING: A clinical psychology research laboratory at Syracuse University.
SUBJECTS: Participants were 33 healthy adults recruited from Syracuse University's online research participation pool.
METHODS: A portable computerized quantitative sensory testing device delivered contact-heat pain to assess static and dynamic pain measures in participants. Dynamic responses were continuously recorded using a computerized visual analog scale.
RESULTS: Pain threshold, tolerance, and suprathreshold exhibited excellent reliability (intraclass correlations ranged from 0.80 to 0.83). Conditioned pain modulation, offset analgesia, temporal summation yielded reliability in the good to excellent range (intraclass correlations ranged from 0.66 to 0.71).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggested that this brief integrated QST protocol may reliably monitor human pain reactivity over brief periods. This protocol may enhance quantitative sensory testing feasibility in clinical and research settings.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assessment; Pain Reactivity; Quantitative Sensory Testing

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34601615      PMCID: PMC8807086          DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnab290

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Med        ISSN: 1526-2375            Impact factor:   3.637


  14 in total

1.  Agreed statistics: measurement method comparison.

Authors:  J Martin Bland; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  CPM Test-Retest Reliability: "Standard" vs "Single Test-Stimulus" Protocols.

Authors:  Yelena Granovsky; Adi Miller-Barmak; Oren Goldstein; Elliot Sprecher; David Yarnitsky
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 3.750

Review 3.  Experimental and clinical applications of quantitative sensory testing applied to skin, muscles and viscera.

Authors:  Lars Arendt-Nielsen; David Yarnitsky
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 5.820

Review 4.  Test-retest studies in quantitative sensory testing: a critical review.

Authors:  M U Werner; M A Petersen; J M Bischoff
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 2.105

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.

Authors:  P E Shrout; J L Fleiss
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 17.737

7.  Bedside testing for precision pain medicine.

Authors:  Maren Reimer; Juliane Sachau; Julia Forstenpointner; Ralf Baron
Journal:  Curr Opin Support Palliat Care       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 2.302

8.  Transient analgesia evoked by noxious stimulus offset.

Authors:  Joshua D Grill; Robert C Coghill
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Contact heat-evoked temporal summation: tonic versus repetitive-phasic stimulation.

Authors:  Michal Granot; Yelena Granovsky; Elliot Sprecher; Rony-Reuven Nir; David Yarnitsky
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 6.961

10.  An experimental model to measure excitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms in humans.

Authors:  Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme; Stéphanie Pagé; Philippe Goffaux; Serge Marchand
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2008-07-09       Impact factor: 3.252

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Assessing Pain Research: A Narrative Review of Emerging Pain Methods, Their Technosocial Implications, and Opportunities for Multidisciplinary Approaches.

Authors:  Sara E Berger; Alexis T Baria
Journal:  Front Pain Res (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-02

2.  Family History of Alcohol Use Disorder as a Predictor of Endogenous Pain Modulation Among Moderate to Heavy Drinkers.

Authors:  Kyle M White; Lisa R LaRowe; Jessica M Powers; Michael B Paladino; Stephen A Maisto; Michael J Zvolensky; Stephen J Glatt; Joseph W Ditre
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2021-12-31       Impact factor: 5.383

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.