ReviewEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2020
Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives.
Review in European journal of pain (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative sensory testing in oral disorders: an update on methods and clinical implications.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Orofacial Pain: Diagnostic and Predictive Performance Across Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Eyelid heat pain sensitivity in healthy participants.Pain reports · 2025Article
- Effects of Oral Topical Capsaicin Gel on Taste Perception in Healthy Subjects: A Pilot Study.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Three Methods of Sensory Function Testing for the Assessment of Successful Maxillary Nerve Blockade in Horses.Journal of veterinary dentistry · 2025Article
- Persistent Idiopathic Dentoalveolar Pain in a Patient With Implant Placement: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
- 3D CRANI, a novel MR neurography sequence, can reliable visualise the extraforaminal cranial and occipital nerves.European radiology · 2023Article
- Long-term bilateral change in pain and sensitivity to high-frequency cutaneous electrical stimulation in healthy subjects depends on stimulus modality: a dermatomal examination.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Somatosensory and Gustatory Profiling in the Orofacial Region.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathy: correlation between objective and subjective assessments and a prediction model for neurosensory recovery.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Observational
- Tooth hypersensitivity associated with paresthesia after inferior alveolar nerve injury: case report and related neurophysiology.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2021Article
- Orofacial quantitative sensory testing: Current evidence and future perspectives.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveOrofacial quantitative sensory testing (QST) is an increasingly valuable psychophysical tool for evaluating neurosensory disorders of the orofacial region. Here, we aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding this testing method and to discuss its future clinical potential. DATA TREATMENT: We conducted a literature search in Medline, Embase and Scopus for English-language articles published between 1990 and 2019. The utilized search terms included QST, quantitative, sensory testing and neurosensory, which were combined using the AND operator with the terms facial, orofacial, trigeminal, intraoral and oral.
resultsOur findings highlighted many methods for conducting QST-including method of levels, method of limits and mapping. Potential stimuli also vary, and can include mechanical or thermal stimulation, vibration or pinprick stimuli. Orofacial QST may be helpful in revealing disease pathways and can be used for patient stratification to validate the use of neurosensory profile-specific treatment options. QST is reportedly reliable in longitudinal studies and is thus a candidate for measuring changes over time. One disadvantage of QST is the substantial time required; however, further methodological refinements and the combination of partial aspects of the full QST battery with other tests and imaging methods should result in improvement.
conclusionsOverall, orofacial QST is a reliable testing method for diagnosing pathological neurosensory conditions and assessing normal neurosensory function. Despite the remaining challenges that hinder the use of QST for everyday clinical decisions and clinical trials, we expect that future improvements will allow its implementation in routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.