ArticlePain2025
Development and validation of a home quantitative sensory testing tool-kit to assess changes in sensory and pain processing: a study in healthy young adults.
Article in Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pain experience and perception in individuals with Snijders Blok-Campeau syndrome.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Sense-checking the approach to quantitative sensory testing to detect chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractQuantitative sensory testing (QST) is a set of methods for quantifying somatosensory functioning. Limitations of laboratory-based QST (LQST) include high cost, complexity in training, lack of portability, and time requirements for testing. Translating QST to a home setting could facilitate future research and clinical care. The objective of this study was to develop a home QST (HQST) tool-kit that is cost-effective, easy to use, and detects changes in sensory and pain processing. Thirty-two young healthy adults underwent sensory testing on their nondominant forearm using standard in-person LQST, followed by "simulated HQST" using video guidance in a separate room from the investigator before and after application of either a lidocaine or capsaicin cream. We observed good agreement between HQST and LQST scores, with significant correlations observed between the pinprick, pressure, cold and heat measures (|ρ| range = 0.36-0.54). The participants rated the HQST protocol as highly acceptable and safe but can be improved in future implementations. Home QST was able to detect hypoesthesia to vibration after lidocaine cream application ( P = 0.024, d = 0.502) and could detect hypoalgesia and hyperalgesia to pressure and heat pain sensitivity tests after application of lidocaine and capsaicin creams, respectively ( P -value range = <0.001-0.036, d -value range = 0.563-0.901). Despite limitations, HQST tool-kits may become a cost-effective, convenient, and scalable approach for improving sensory profiling in clinical care and clinical 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.