Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39253737›Full record

ArticleJournal of pain research2024

Differences in Somatosensory Function Related to Hand Dominance: Results of a Quantitative Sensory Testing Study in Healthy Volunteers.

Donna L Kennedy, Imogen Pateman, Andrew S C Rice, Caroline M Alexander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Donna L KennedyTherapy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7415-4761
Imogen PatemanTherapy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0004-4524-5017
Andrew S C RicePain Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Caroline M AlexanderTherapy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Quantitative sensory testing commonly utilizes the unaffected, contralateral side as a control to detect somatosensory dysfunction. There is scant evidence that somatosensory function for the volar dominant and non-dominant hands is equivalent, therefore intra-patient comparisons are unwarranted. This study aimed to identify dominance-related differences in palmar hand somatosensation, thereby determining if the unaffected contralateral hand is a valid comparator in clinical populations. Participants and Methods: With ethical approval (IREC_13_1_10) and informed consent, 110 healthy adult volunteers' participated in this clinical measurement study. Somatosensory function was assessed with the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol. Half of the participants were tested on the dominant hand. Thirteen parameters of thermal and mechanical detection and pain threshold were evaluated at both the dorsal and volar hand (distal middle finger). Tests were performed in the same order and instructions were read from a standardized script. Results for dorsal hand tests were compared to DFNS normative data to confirm participants met study inclusion criteria. Between-group differences for age and sex were investigated with the independent samples Results: Data for 106 participants were included in statistical analysis. Fifty percent of participants were tested on the dominant hand [n=53]; there were no differences for age or sex between groups (dominant or non-dominant hand test group). The dominant volar hand was significantly more sensitive to vibration detection threshold than the non-dominant hand (P=0.001). There were no significant differences related to dominance for other DFNS QST measures. Conclusion: For quantitative sensory testing with the DFNS protocol in healthy cohorts, the contralateral, unaffected hand is a valid control, with the exception of vibration detection threshold.

Indexed as

evaluationmechanoreceptionpainthermoreceptionvibration

Identifiers

PMID39253737
PMCPMC11382655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.