Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36624753›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2023

Novice assessors demonstrate good intra-rater agreement and reliability when determining pressure pain thresholds; a cross-sectional study.

Roland R Reezigt, Geranda E C Slager, Michel W Coppieters, Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07036354 (Evaluation of the Effects of Human-Animal Interaction on Physiological and Psychological Anxiety Markers in Graduate Students), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT07036354 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the Effects of Human-Animal Interaction on Physiological and Psychological Anxiety Markers in Graduate Students

TypeinterventionalSponsorWichita State UniversityRan2025 to 2027Enrolled30ConditionsHuman-animal Interaction, AnxietyArmsHuman-Animal Interaction, General Health Education
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Roland R ReezigtDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences-Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9388-0283
Geranda E C SlagerAcademy of Health, Department of Physiotherapy, Hanze University of Applied Scienses, Groningen, Netherlands.
Michel W CoppietersDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences-Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3958-4408
Gwendolyne G M Scholten-PeetersDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences-Program Musculoskeletal Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4409-9554
Hanze University of Applied Sciences · NLGriffith University · AUVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type. Methods: Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined ( Results: Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9-16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from -55 to +32 kPa or from -9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC Conclusions: Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalPain ThresholdCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPain MeasurementReproducibility of ResultsCentral sensitisationMechanical hyperalgesiaNovice assessorNovice raterPain measurementPain sensitivityPressure pain thresholdQuantitative sensory testingReliabilityReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID36624753
PMCPMC9825054
OpenAlexW4313579104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.