ArticleJournal of pain research2024
Test-Retest Reliability of Pain Sensitivity Measures in Individuals with Shoulder Pain.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2024. 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.
- Reliability of Temporal Summation of Pain in Healthy and Clinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Somatosensory Function and Pain: Associations Over 12 Months Postinjury in Youth With Acute Musculoskeletal Pain.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Article
- Pain modulation profiles in temporomandibular disorders with migraine and fibromyalgia.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Article
- Experimental Pain Model Based on Short-Wave Diathermy Replicates the Intensity, Quality and Spatial Distribution of Chronic Shoulder Pain: A Parallel Group Validation Study.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
- [Association of increased greater tubercle angle and critical shoulder angle with rotator cuff tears].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Central sensitization (CS) has been proposed as a possible contributor to persistent shoulder pain. Measures of sensitivity, such as quantitative sensory tests (QSTs) and sensitivity to movements evoked pain (SMEP), have been increasingly used to investigate CS in a wide range of painful conditions. However, there is a lack of data on whether QST and SMEP are reliable among individuals with shoulder pain. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the intra-rater test-retest reliability of QST and SMEP in individuals with chronic shoulder pain. Materials and Methods: Forty-seven individuals with chronic shoulder pain were enrolled in the study. The QST measures, including pressure pain threshold (PPT) and mechanical temporal summation (MTS), were tested, and SMEP was measured with a lifting task. Relative and absolute reliability were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC 3,1) and standard error of the measurement (SEM), respectively. Results: The results showed that the ICC coefficients for all sensitivity measures were moderate to good, ranging from 0.63 to 0.86. The SEM% for the QST measures at all sites ranged from 21.4% to 36%, with TS at the forearm demonstrating a high SEM% (greater than 30%). The SMEP measure also showed a high SEM% (46%). Conclusion: The results showed that the sensitivity measures had moderate to good reliability among individuals with shoulder pain. Acceptable limits of accuracy of measurements were demonstrated for TS and PPT measures, while SMEP demonstrated high error, highlighting the need for further refinement of this measure among these populations.
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.