Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28919806›Full record

ArticleJournal of pain research2017

How stable are quantitative sensory testing measurements over time? Report on 10-week reliability and agreement of results in healthy volunteers.

Helen Nothnagel, Christian Puta, Thomas Lehmann, Philipp Baumbach, Martha B Menard, Brunhild Gabriel, Holger H W Gabriel, Thomas Weiss, Frauke Musial

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Feasibility and acceptability of remote administration of the cold pressor test.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Helen Nothnagel *Department of Sports Medicine and Health Promotion, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Christian Puta *Department of Sports Medicine and Health Promotion, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Thomas LehmannDepartment of Medical Statistics, Computer Sciences and Documentation, Friedrich Schiller University.
Philipp BaumbachDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Jena, Germany.
Martha B MenardCrocker Institute, Kiawah Island, SC.
Brunhild GabrielDepartment of Sports Medicine and Health Promotion, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Holger H W GabrielDepartment of Sports Medicine and Health Promotion, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Thomas WeissDepartment of Biological and Clinical Psychology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Frauke MusialDepartment of Community Medicine, National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Friedrich Schiller University Jena · DEJena University Hospital · DEOffice of Multidisciplinary Activities · USSaybrook University · USSchiller International University · FRUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuantitative sensory testing (QST) is a diagnostic tool for the assessment of the somatosensory system. To establish QST as an outcome measure for clinical trials, the question of how similar the measurements are over time is crucial. Therefore, long-term reliability and limits of agreement of the standardized QST protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain were tested.

methodsQST on the lower back and hand dorsum (dominant hand) were assessed twice in 22 healthy volunteers (10 males and 12 females; mean age: 46.6±13.0 years), with sessions separated by 10.0±2.9 weeks. All measurements were performed by one investigator. To investigate long-term reliability and agreement of QST, differences between the two measurements, correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman plots (limits of agreement), and standard error of measurement were used.

resultsMost parameters of the QST were reliable over 10 weeks in healthy volunteers: Almost-perfect ICCs were observed for heat pain threshold (hand) and mechanical pain sensitivity (back). Substantial ICCs were observed for heat pain threshold (back), pressure pain threshold (back), mechanical pain sensitivity (hand), and vibration detection threshold (back and hand). Some QST parameters, such as cold detection threshold, exhibited low ICCs, but also very low variability. Generally, QST measures exhibited narrow limits of agreement in the Bland-Altman plots.

conclusionThe standardized QST protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain is feasible to be used in treatment trials. Moreover, defining a statistically meaningful change is possible, which is a prerequisite for the use of QST in clinical trials as well as in long-term investigations of disease progression.

Indexed as

Bland–Altman plothealthy volunteersintraclass correlationslimits of agreementminimum detectable differenceQSTstandard error of measurementtest–retest reliability

Identifiers

PMID28919806
PMCPMC5587201
OpenAlexW2753594875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.