Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36660554›Full record

ArticlePain reports2023

Test-retest reliability of a simple bedside-quantitative sensory testing battery for chronic neuropathic pain.

Juliane Sachau, Christina Appel, Maren Reimer, Manon Sendel, Jan Vollert, Philipp Hüllemann, Ralf Baron

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Feasibility and acceptability of remote administration of the cold pressor test.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Precision Medicine in Neuropathic Pain.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2023
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Juliane SachauDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Christina AppelDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Maren ReimerDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Manon SendelDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Jan VollertDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Philipp HüllemannDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Ralf BaronDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEApple (Israel) · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The sensory phenotype is believed to provide information about the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and to be used in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. However, the use of standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocols is limited due to high expenditures of time and costs. Thus, a simple bedside-QST battery was recently developed showing good agreement when compared with laboratory QST. The aim of this study was to preliminary validate this bedside-QST protocol. Methods: Patients experiencing chronic pain with neuropathic features (n = 60) attended 3 visits. During the first visit, laboratory QST and bedside-QST were performed by the same trained investigator. Three hours and 3 weeks later, bedside-QST was repeated. Patients completed questionnaires regarding their pain (intensity, quality), depression/anxiety, and quality of life. Test-retest reliability and convergent/divergent validity were investigated. Results: Most of the bedside-QST parameters, including also those recommended in our first study as being indicative for sensory phenotypes, revealed a moderate to excellent test-retest reliability. Overall, results for short-term reliability and interval-scaled parameters were slightly better. Most of the bedside-QST parameters did not correlate with the depression and anxiety score, suggesting a good divergent validity. Conclusions: Bedside-QST has good criterion and divergent validity as well as reliability. This battery consists of 5 low-cost devices that can be quickly and easily used to characterize the sensory phenotype of patients with neuropathic pain. A combination of bedside-QST parameters can be used to investigate patients' subgroups with specific pathophysiological mechanisms and to identify treatment responders.

Indexed as

Bedside sensory testingDFNSNeuropathic painPreliminary validationQuantitative sensory testingReliability

Identifiers

PMID36660554
PMCPMC9842225
OpenAlexW4317567708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.