1998
DOI: 10.1300/j094v06n01_02
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Algometry in Diagnosis of Musculoskeletal Pain and Evaluation of Treatment Outcome: An Update

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
43
0
4

Year Published

2001
2001
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
43
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Patients also completed the mFIQ and SCL-90-R. In addition, one of the clinic's two chartered physical therapists interviewed each patient with respect to their pain complaints, had them draw their pain distribution on a human figure outline, and verified the presence of the requisite number of positive tender points according to ACR classification criteria for FS that included testing pain threshold at each of 18 designated tender point locations (ACR 1990 criteria; see Wolfe et al, 1990) and four control sites (Fischer, 1987(Fischer, , 1998) using a pressure algometer (Pain Diagnostics & Thermography Inc., Great Neck, NY). Tender points were designated as positive if a pain response was elicited at a pressure less than 4.0 kg/cm 2 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patients also completed the mFIQ and SCL-90-R. In addition, one of the clinic's two chartered physical therapists interviewed each patient with respect to their pain complaints, had them draw their pain distribution on a human figure outline, and verified the presence of the requisite number of positive tender points according to ACR classification criteria for FS that included testing pain threshold at each of 18 designated tender point locations (ACR 1990 criteria; see Wolfe et al, 1990) and four control sites (Fischer, 1987(Fischer, , 1998) using a pressure algometer (Pain Diagnostics & Thermography Inc., Great Neck, NY). Tender points were designated as positive if a pain response was elicited at a pressure less than 4.0 kg/cm 2 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…29,30 The pressure of compression was increased gradually at a speed of ∼1 kg/s. The participant was asked to say 'yes' as soon as pain or discomfort occurred and at this moment the compression was stopped.…”
Section: Pressure Pain Thresholdmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The assessor applied continuous pressure with the algometer at approximately a rate of 1 kg/cm 2 /s, until it recorded a pressure of 2.5 kg/cm 2 . Pressure thresholds lower than 3 kg are considered to be abnormally low (Fischer, 1996). If the referred pain evoked by the MTrP was obtained before 2.5 kg/ cm 2 , criteria 4 was seen to be fulfilled.…”
Section: Article In Pressmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pretreatment measurement of the PPT was assessed by Therapist 2, who was blinded to the treatment allocation of the subject. This procedure was performed following the guidelines described by Fischer (1990Fischer ( , 1996: (a) The patient lay supine; (b) The PTM was placed perpendicular to the MTrP (Fig. 2); (c) The patient was instructed to report to the assessor the instant the sensation of pressure became one of pressure and pain; (d) The pressure was applied approximately at a rate of 1 kg/cm 2 /s until the moment that the pressure was perceived as pressure and pain (e) The application of pressure was stopped and the maximum pressure displayed by the algometer was recorded.…”
Section: Outcome Measures and Instrumentationmentioning
confidence: 99%