ArticleIntegrative medicine research2021
Development of a patient-report pressure algometer for the quantification of abdominal examination.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acupoint Sensitivity in Health and Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Quantitative Assessment of Abdominal Physical Features Associated with Cold Pattern.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Feasibility Study for the Quantification of Fullness and Discomfort in the Chest and Hypochondrium.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Impact and Correlation of Anxiety and Depression on Pressure Pain Threshold of Acupoints in Patients with Chronic Pelvic Inflammatory Disease.Pain research & management · 2023Article
- Exploring the Differences in the Gut Microbiome in Atopic Dermatitis According to the Presence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbdominal examination (AE), one of the primary diagnostic tools used in traditional Korean medicine (TKM), has a limitation of being subjective due to depending on individual practitioner's experience. Therefore, we devised a novel patient-report pressure algometer (PA) and performed a clinical trial to investigate its validity.
methodsIn total, 44 participants with functional dyspepsia and 44 healthy participants completed the study. The participants were allocated into one of two groups according to the existence of abdominal stiffness at 5 acupoints or abdominal tenderness at 12 acupoints diagnosed by TKM doctors. The pressure depth and pressure pain threshold (PPT) were evaluated using the PA at the same acupoints. We assessed the validity (sensitivity and specificity) of PA and calculated the area under the curve (AUC) and optimal cutoff value of the test variables (pressure depth and PPT) to criterion standards (abdominal stiffness and tenderness).
resultsPressure depth and PPT assessed by PA showed high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing abdominal stiffness and tenderness. The validity at CV-14 of diagnosing abdominal tenderness with PPT by PA had a sensitivity of 73.1%, specificity of 77.8%, and an AUC of 0.807 with a
conclusionThis study may provide evidence of standardization and quantification of AE through PA.
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.