ArticlePain reports
Mechanical detection and pain thresholds: comparability of devices using stepped and ramped stimuli.
Article in Pain reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Mechanical Detection Thresholds in Healthy Participants and Patients With Neuropathy: A Comparison of OptiHair2 and Aesthesiometer II.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
- Navigating Preclinical Models and Medications for Peripheral Neuropathy: A Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Low-Intensity 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Reduces Behavioral and Neural Hypersensitivity in a Rat Model of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy.Journal of pain research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative sensory testing is used to assess somatosensory function in humans. The protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) provides comprehensive normative values using defined tools; however, some of these may not be feasible in low-resource settings.
objectivesTo compare the standard DFNS devices for assessment of mechanosensory function to a low resource tool, the Sorri-Bauru-monofilaments.
methodsMechanical detection thresholds (MDT), pain thresholds (MPT), and suprathreshold pinprick ratings (pain sensitivity: MPS) were measured over cheek, hand dorsum, and fingertip in 13 healthy subjects (7 female, aged 21-44 years). Mechanical detection threshold was assessed with DFNS standard glass monofilaments (0.25-512 mN, 0.5 mm tip) and nylon monofilaments (Sorri-Bauru; 0.5-3000 mN). MPT was assessed with DFNS standard cylindrical probes (8-512 mN, 0.25 mm tip), Sorri-Bauru monofilaments, and with ramped stimuli using an electronic von Frey aesthesiometer (10 mN/s or 100 mN/s, 0.20 mm tip). MPS was measured in response to stepped and ramped pinpricks (128 and 256 mN).
resultsMechanical detection thresholds were the same for DFNS and Sorri-Bauru monofilaments. For MPT, Sorri-Bauru filaments yielded lower values than PinPricks over face but not hand. Pain thresholds were higher at all test sites for ramped than stepped pinpricks (
conclusionSorri-Bauru filaments are acceptable substitutes for DFNS standards in estimating tactile sensitivity, but are not consistent with standard probes for pinprick sensitivity because of their nonstandardized tips. Ramped stimuli overestimated MPT and underestimated MPS due to reaction time artefacts and therefore need their own normative values.
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.