Novice assessors demonstrate good intra-rater agreement and reliability when determining pressure pain thresholds; a cross-sectional study.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Novice assessors demonstrate good intra-rater agreement and reliability when determining pressure pain thresholds; a cross-sectional study.
Autorzy:: Reezigt RR; Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences-Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.; Academy of Health, Department of Physiotherapy, Hanze University of Applied Scienses, Groningen, Netherlands.
Slager GEC; Academy of Health, Department of Physiotherapy, Hanze University of Applied Scienses, Groningen, Netherlands.
Coppieters MW; Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences-Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.; Griffith University, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Australia.; School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Australia.
Scholten-Peeters GGM; Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences-Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Źródło:: PeerJ [PeerJ] 2023 Jan 04; Vol. 11, pp. e14565. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jan 04 (Print Publication: 2023).
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Original Publication: Corte Madera, CA : PeerJ Inc.
MeSH Terms:: Pain Threshold*/physiology
Muscle, Skeletal*
Humans ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Reproducibility of Results ; Pain Measurement
References:: Schmerz. 2021 Nov;35(Suppl 3):153-160. (PMID: 26826097)
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Jan 15;16:15. (PMID: 26768734)
Optom Vis Sci. 2015 Mar;92(3):e71-80. (PMID: 25650900)
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1033-9. (PMID: 16980142)
Scand J Rheumatol. 2018 Nov;47(6):491-500. (PMID: 29939097)
Stat Med. 1998 Jan 15;17(1):101-10. (PMID: 9463853)
Cranio. 1992 Jan;10(1):28-34. (PMID: 1302649)
Clin Chem. 2016 Jul;62(7):966-72. (PMID: 27197675)
Int J Nurs Stud. 2011 Jun;48(6):661-71. (PMID: 21514934)
Schmerz. 2009 Feb;23(1):65-9. (PMID: 19184121)
J Contin Educ Nurs. 2016 Jun 1;47(6):278-82. (PMID: 27232227)
J Pain. 2019 Nov;20(11):1353-1361. (PMID: 31077797)
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45. (PMID: 20494804)
Pain. 1987 Jul;30(1):115-126. (PMID: 3614975)
Eur J Pain. 2015 Jul;19(6):805-6. (PMID: 25330039)
Scand J Pain. 2018 Apr 25;18(2):229-236. (PMID: 29794293)
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63. (PMID: 27330520)
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60. (PMID: 10501650)
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Sep;41(9):644-50. (PMID: 21885906)
Addict Behav. 2017 Apr;67:79-85. (PMID: 28061378)
Lancet. 1954 Mar 27;266(6813):636-9. (PMID: 13143740)
PeerJ. 2021 Dec 14;9:e12330. (PMID: 35003911)
Phys Ther. 1998 Feb;78(2):160-9. (PMID: 9474108)
Pain. 2005 Apr;114(3):372-385. (PMID: 15777863)
Qual Life Res. 2021 Aug;30(8):2197-2218. (PMID: 33818733)
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Jul 1;100(7):656-674. (PMID: 33002911)
J Rehabil Med. 2009 Apr;41(5):343-6. (PMID: 19363567)
Physiother Res Int. 2018 Oct;23(4):e1736. (PMID: 30088327)
J Clin Med. 2021 Jul 21;10(15):. (PMID: 34361986)
Pain. 1989 Nov;39(2):157-169. (PMID: 2594394)
Pain. 2006 Aug;123(3):231-243. (PMID: 16697110)
J Pain. 2007 Aug;8(8):650-6. (PMID: 17553750)
J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Feb;19(1):231-40. (PMID: 15705040)
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 May 22;10(5):. (PMID: 32456091)
Diagnostics (Basel). 2018 Sep 24;8(4):. (PMID: 30249982)
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1993 Apr;21(2):72-7. (PMID: 8485973)
Physiother Res Int. 2002;7(3):113-21. (PMID: 12426909)
Scand J Pain. 2016 Oct;13:114-122. (PMID: 28850507)
Pain. 2002 Feb;95(3):195-199. (PMID: 11839418)
Sports Med. 2000 Nov;30(5):375-81. (PMID: 11103850)
J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2017 Jan;43(1):48-61. (PMID: 28045294)
Phys Ther. 1997 Jul;77(7):745-50. (PMID: 9225846)
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Dec 04;15:408. (PMID: 25477032)
Man Ther. 2007 May;12(2):192-7. (PMID: 16956783)
Pain. 2007 Jul;130(1-2):137-43. (PMID: 17215080)
Anesth Pain Med. 2016 Mar 26;6(3):e33193. (PMID: 27642573)
Sports Med. 1998 Oct;26(4):217-38. (PMID: 9820922)
PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233521. (PMID: 32469913)
Pain Pract. 2018 Feb;18(2):224-229. (PMID: 28440895)
Pain. 2015 Nov;156(11):2203-2211. (PMID: 26075963)
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Central sensitisation; Mechanical hyperalgesia; Novice assessor; Novice rater; Pain measurement; Pain sensitivity; Pressure pain threshold; Quantitative sensory testing; Reliability; Reproducibility
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20230110 Date Completed: 20230111 Latest Revision: 20230427
Update Code:: 20240105
PubMed Central ID:: PMC9825054
DOI:: 10.7717/peerj.14565
PMID:: 36624753
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Background: Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type.
Methods: Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined ( i.e ., the group representing novice assessors), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC 1,1 ).
Results: Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9-16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from -55 to +32 kPa or from -9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC 1,1 : 0.87 to 0.95). Results were similar for both types of algometers.
Conclusions: Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
(© 2023 Reezigt et al.)

Informacja