Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis

Brady, Sophia M.; Georgopoulos, Vasileios; Veldhuijzen van Zanten, Jet J.C.S.; Duda, Joan L.; Metsios, George S.; Kitas, George D.; Fenton, Sally A.M.; Walsh, David A.; McWilliams, Daniel F.

Authors

Sophia M. Brady

Jet J.C.S. Veldhuijzen van Zanten

Joan L. Duda

George S. Metsios

George D. Kitas

Sally A.M. Fenton

DAVID WALSH david.walsh@nottingham.ac.uk
Professor of Rheumatology



Abstract

Introduction:
Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) modalities used to assess central pain mechanisms require different protocols in people with different musculoskeletal conditions.

Objectives:
We aimed to explore the possible effects of musculoskeletal diagnosis and test site on QST interrater and test–retest reliability.

Methods:
The study included participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 18; QST conducted on lower leg) and low back pain (LBP, n = 25; QST conducted on forearm), plus 45 healthy control participants (n = 20 QST on lower leg and n = 25 QST on forearm). Test–retest reliability was assessed from QST conducted 1 to 3 weeks apart. Quantitative sensory testing modalities used were pressure pain detection threshold (PPT) at a site distant to tissue pathology, temporal summation (TS), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Temporal summation was calculated as difference or ratio of single and repeated punctate stimuli and unconditioned thresholds for CPM used single or mean of multiple PPTs. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were compared between different subgroups.

Results:
High to very high reliability was found for all assessments of PPT and TS across anatomical sites (lower leg and forearm) and participants (healthy, RA, and LBP) (ICC ≥ 0.77 for PPT and ICC ≥ 0.76 for TS). Reliability was higher when TS was calculated as a difference rather than a ratio. Conditioned pain modulation showed no to moderate reliability (ICC = 0.01–0.64) that was similar between leg or forearm, and between healthy people and those with RA or LBP.

Conclusion:
PPT and TS are transferable tools to quantify pain sensitivity at different testing sites in different musculoskeletal diagnoses. Low apparent reliability of CPM protocols might indicate minute-to-minute dynamic pain modulation.

Citation

Brady, S. M., Georgopoulos, V., Veldhuijzen van Zanten, J. J., Duda, J. L., Metsios, G. S., Kitas, G. D., …McWilliams, D. F. (2023). The interrater and test–retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis. PAIN Reports, 8(6), Article e1102. https://doi.org/10.1097/pr9.0000000000001102

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Sep 1, 2023
Publication Date 2023-12
Deposit Date Nov 3, 2023
Publicly Available Date Nov 10, 2023
Journal PAIN Reports
Publisher Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 8
Issue 6
Article Number e1102
DOI https://doi.org/10.1097/pr9.0000000000001102
Keywords Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/26226003
Publisher URL https://journals.lww.com/painrpts/fulltext/2023/12000/the_interrater_and_test_retest_reliability_of_3.1.aspx

Files





You might also like



Downloadable Citations