ArticlePeerJ2023
Novice assessors demonstrate good intra-rater agreement and reliability when determining pressure pain thresholds; a cross-sectional study.
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.
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.
Evaluation of the Effects of Human-Animal Interaction on Physiological and Psychological Anxiety Markers in Graduate Students
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Dry Needling Combined with Eccentric Exercise Versus Oral and Topical NSAID Treatment in Patients with Tennis Elbow: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of evidence-based integrative medicineTrial
- Reference ranges and influencing factors of pressure pain threshold in Chinese patients with knee osteoarthritis.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Reliability and standard error of measurement of pressure pain thresholds at articular landmarks.British journal of pain · 2026Article
- Reference Values of Joint-Specific Pressure Pain Thresholds in Healthy Male Individuals: A Retrospective Study.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
- Intra-Rater Reliability of Pressure Pain Threshold with Different Algometers in Healthy Participants.Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reliability of the use of foot pressure pain threshold in adults: a test-retest analysis.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Value of the central sensitisation inventory in patients with axial spondyloarthritis.RMD open · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.