Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31325385›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2019

Concurrent validity of a low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory test battery to evaluate somatosensory dysfunction.

Guan Cheng Zhu, Karina Böttger, Helen Slater, Chad Cook, Scott F Farrell, Louise Hailey, Brigitte Tampin, Annina B Schmid

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Guan Cheng ZhuNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Karina BöttgerCentre of Pain Medicine, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Helen SlaterSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Chad CookDepartment of Orthopaedics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Scott F FarrellRECOVER Injury Research Centre, NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Recovery Following Road Traffic Injuries, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Louise HaileyNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Brigitte TampinSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Annina B SchmidNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBClinical Research Institute · USCurtin University · AUGriffith University · AUSir Charles Gairdner Hospital · AUSwiss Paraplegic Center · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study describes a low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory test (CST) battery and evaluates its concurrent validity as a screening tool to detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined using quantitative sensory testing (QST).

methodThree patient cohorts with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS, n = 76), non-specific neck and arm pain (NSNAP, n = 40) and lumbar radicular pain/radiculopathy (LR, n = 26) were included. The CST consisted of 13 tests, each corresponding to a QST parameter and evaluating a broad spectrum of sensory functions using thermal (coins, ice cube, hot test tube) and mechanical (cotton wool, von Frey hairs, tuning fork, toothpicks, thumb and eraser pressure) detection and pain thresholds testing both loss and gain of function. Agreement rate, statistical significance and strength of correlation (phi coefficient) between CST and QST parameters were calculated.

resultsSeveral CST parameters (cold, warm and mechanical detection thresholds as well as cold and pressure pain thresholds) were significantly correlated with QST, with a majority demonstrating >60% agreement rates and moderate to relatively strong correlations. However, agreement varied among cohorts. Gain of function parameters showed stronger agreement in the CTS and LR cohorts, whereas loss of function parameters had better agreement in the NSNAP cohort. Other CST parameters (16 mN von Frey tests, vibration detection, heat and mechanical pain thresholds, wind-up ratio) did not significantly correlate with QST.

conclusionSome of the tests in the CST could help detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined with QST. Parts of the CST could therefore be used as a low-cost screening tool in a clinical setting. SIGNIFICANCE: Quantitative sensory testing, albeit considered the gold standard to evaluate somatosensory dysfunction, requires expensive equipment, specialized examiner training and substantial time commitment which challenges its use in a clinical setting. Our study describes a CST as a low-cost and time-efficient alternative. Some of the CST tools (cold, warm, mechanical detection thresholds; pressure pain thresholds) significantly correlated with the respective QST parameters, suggesting that they may be useful in a clinical setting to detect sensory dysfunction.

Indexed as

AdultAgedArmCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCohort StudiesFemaleHot TemperatureHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeck PainNeuralgiaNociceptive PainPain Measurement

Identifiers

PMID31325385
PMCPMC6852113
OpenAlexW2963348744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.