Test Procedures to Assess Somatosensory Abnormalities in Individuals with Peripheral Joint Pain: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties

Alqarni, Abdullah M.; Manlapaz, Donald; Baxter, David; Tumilty, Steve; Mani, Ramakrishnan

doi:10.1111/papr.12680

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 99 publications

(399 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, there are limited systematic reviews evaluating the quality of published QST reliability studies. Of those which do exist, they have evaluated thermal sensory testing, conditioned pain modulation and QST test procedures for peripheral joint pain [34][35][36]. Variable approaches in reporting, methods used and statistical analysis were highlighted in these reviews with a call for higher quality reliability studies to be conducted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of temporal summation, thermal and pressure pain thresholds in a healthy cohort and musculoskeletal trauma population

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traumatic injuries affect approximately 978 million people worldwide with 56.2 million requiring inpatient care. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) can be useful in predicting outcome following trauma, however the reliability of multiple QST including temporal summation (TS), heat and cold pain thresholds (HPT, CPT) and pressure pain thresholds (PPT) is unknown. We assessed intra (between day) and inter-rater (within day) reliability of QST in asymptomatic participants (n = 21), and inter-rater (within day) reliability in participants presenting with acute musculoskeletal trauma (n = 25). Intra-class correlations with 95% confidence intervals (ICC 3,2), standard error of measurement (SEM) and Bland Altman Plots for limits of agreement were calculated. For asymptomatic participants, reliability was good to excellent for HPT (ICC range 0.76-0.95), moderate to good for PPT (ICC range 0.52-0.93), with one site rated poor (ICC 0.41), and poor to excellent for TS scores (ICC range 0.20-0.91). For musculoskeletal trauma participants reliability was good to excellent for HPT and PPT (ICC range 0.76-0.86), and moderate to good reliability for TS (ICC range 0.69-0.91). SEM for HPT for both sets of participants was~1˚C and an average of 7N for asymptomatic participants and less than 8N for acute musculoskeletal trauma participants for PPT. This study demonstrates moderate to excellent intra and inter-rater reliability for HPT and PPT in asymptomatic participants and good to excellent inter-rater reliability for acute musculoskeletal trauma participants, with TS showing more variability for both sets of participants. This study provides foundations for future work evaluating the sensory function over time following acute musculoskeletal trauma.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of temporal summation, thermal and pressure pain thresholds in a healthy cohort and musculoskeletal trauma population

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also checked the reference lists from relevant articles to contribute to the completeness of the search. 23,24 The article selection procedure will be presented in the PRISMA flowchart. A complete electronic search strategy for the PubMed database is presented in Table 2.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23 Although the use of QST is widespread and several studies in patients with chronic shoulder pain have used it, there is inconsistency in the results due to different protocols and other factors that may affect measurements (stimulation parameters, detection of stimuli, order of testing procedures, raters training, participants' familiarization, medication usage etc.). [24][25][26] However, the use of reliable and valid assessment tools is vital whether they are used for research or clinical purposes. Over the last years, systematic reviews have been published that have examined the psychometric properties (PMPs) of different components of QST in different populations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric properties of quantitative sensory testing focusing on healthy and patients with shoulder pain: a systematic review protocol

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a battery of non-invasive psychophysical methods to assess the function of somatosensory system. Although the use of QST is widespread and several studies in patients with chronic shoulder pain have used it, the level of evidence for the psychometric properties has not been established. The aim of this protocol is to investigate, through a systematic review, the level of evidence for the psychometric properties of QST in the shoulder.Methods: For conducting and reporting this review the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines will be used. Nine databases including PubMed, Medline, AMED (via EBSCO), PEDRO, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, SportDiscus, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library will be searched for the period from their inception until September 2021. Two reviewers (BP and SK) will independently evaluate the retrieved articles (titles and abstracts) and the psychometric characteristics checklist based on the standards from the COSMIN. The modified grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to assess the overall quality of the evidence.Conclusions: Evaluation of the level of evidence for the psychometric properties of QST in the shoulder is an essential step for evidence-based assessment in clinical practice.Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021232778.

show abstract

“…Previous systematic reviews summarizing features of CS and outcome measurements used in WAD (Van Oosterwijck et al., 2013), and peripheral joint pain (Alqarni et al., 2018) highlight a wide range of outcome measures currently being utilized, particularly QST. Systematic reviews evaluating reliability of specific outcome measures such as thermal testing (Moloney et al., 2012), and conditioned pain modulation (Kennedy et al., 2016) have been conducted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of central sensitization and their measurement properties in musculoskeletal trauma: A systematic review

Middlebrook

Rushton

Abichandani

et al. 2020

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In chronic whiplash associated disorders (WAD), poorer outcome is linked to early widespread sensitization (Sterling et al., 2003; Van Oosterwijck et al., 2013; Walton, MacDermid, Nielson, Teasell, Reese, et al., 2011), and following fractures, widespread pain distribution is evident soon after injury (Doménech-García et al., 2018). Due to noxious stimuli and prolonged duration of high pain intensity (Graven-Nielsen

show abstract

Test Procedures to Assess Somatosensory Abnormalities in Individuals with Peripheral Joint Pain: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties

Cited by 9 publications

References 99 publications

Reliability of temporal summation, thermal and pressure pain thresholds in a healthy cohort and musculoskeletal trauma population

Reliability of temporal summation, thermal and pressure pain thresholds in a healthy cohort and musculoskeletal trauma population

Psychometric properties of quantitative sensory testing focusing on healthy and patients with shoulder pain: a systematic review protocol

Measures of central sensitization and their measurement properties in musculoskeletal trauma: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About