ArticleMuscles (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Intra-Rater Reliability of Pressure Pain Threshold with Different Algometers in Healthy Participants.
Article in Muscles (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Effect of comprehensive rehabilitation on pressure pain threshold, functional disability, and plantar pressure among type 2 diabetes mellitus individuals with chronic low back pain.Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Multimodal Interventions for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Randomized Trial of Acupuncture, Stretching, and Qigong.Cureus · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlgometry is a validated and reliable measurement tool, but there are still no reliable data for the different algometers used by different raters in the same participant.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the intra-reliability of pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) measured using a digital algometer with and without a digital screen by different raters at the same time in a pain-free population.
methodsParticipants were healthy adults. PPTs were assessed using two different algometers: a digital algometer with a digital screen for a feedback of the pressure curve rate (SpTech Digital Algometer); and a digital algometer without a screen (Wagner Instruments FDX-25, Greenwich, CT, USA). Four PPT points were used: upper trapezius, lumbar spine, extensor carpi ulnaris, and tibialis anterior. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II was used to assess burnout, stress, sleeping problems, depressive symptoms, somatic stress, and cognitive stress. The intraclass coefficients (ICCs) for intra-rater reliability was calculated using a two-way mixed effects model, single measurement type, and absolute agreement definition.
resultsA total of 47 healthy participants with a mean age of 30.51 (11.35) years were included. The upper trapezius and extensor carpi ulnaris had the lowest PPT values, and the tibialis anterior had the highest PPT value. Females had the lowest PPT values when compared with males with
conclusionsThe intra-rater reliability of PPTs measured by different digital algometers ranged from good to excellent reliability. The rater with more experience demonstrated higher reliability.
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.