ArticleJournal of pain research2021
Classification of Qualitative Fieldnotes Collected During Quantitative Sensory Testing: A Step Towards the Development of a New Mixed Methods Approach in Pain Research.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aftersensations and Lingering Pain After Examination in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Beyond numbers: integrating qualitative analysis into quantitative sensory testing for neuropathic pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Aftersensations and Lingering Pain After Examination in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Sensitization of supra-threshold pain responses-Translational aspects and mechanisms.Frontiers in network physiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeQuantitative sensory testing (QST) is a standardized method to assess somatosensory function. The collection of qualitative information, during the QST procedure, could be an interesting way to facilitate the characterization of altered sensory perception and the identification of different pain phenotypes. The aims of this study were 1) to classify qualitative fieldnotes of sensory abnormalities collected during an independent QST study, and 2) to generate a qualitative interview guide that could be included in the traditional QST procedure as a step towards the implementation of a mixed methods approach. PATIENTS AND
methodsQST data were collected from 48 chronic neuropathic pain patients treated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Three body areas, with or without SCS, were tested: the painful limb targeted by SCS, the contralateral area, and the ipsilateral upper limb. After each trial of each QST modality, patients were encouraged to report any sensory abnormalities they could identify with a pain quality scale or using their own words.
resultsQualitative self-reported sensory abnormalities were dichotomized into two groups: altered sensory intensities and altered sensory perceptions. Altered sensory intensities were classified as sensory loss or sensory gain subgroups. Altered sensory perceptions were classified as paresthesia and dysesthesia subgroups Overall, 630 qualitative fieldnotes of altered sensations were collected: 385 on the painful limb, 173 at the contralateral area, and 72 at the ipsilateral upper limb. Based on these qualitative data, we propose a standardized method to collect qualitative data involving 9 open- and close-ended questions and 21 codes.
conclusionOur findings have highlighted the value of qualitative sensory evaluation during QST and constitute an important milestone in the development of a mixed methods protocol in phenotyping research.
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.