ArticlePeerJ2025
Reliability of the use of foot pressure pain threshold in adults: a test-retest analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reliability and standard error of measurement of pressure pain thresholds at articular landmarks.British journal of pain · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Foot pain is very common, affecting 24% of the adult population over 45 years old. Mechanical stimulation devices, such as pressure algometers, are used for the precise and objective quantification of the pain threshold (minimum tolerable pain). The digital pressure algometer is a diagnostic tool for evaluating pain thresholds and pain tolerance related to musculoskeletal conditions in patients. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) measured with a digital algometer have shown good to excellent intra-rater agreement and reliability for most body locations. However, no study has focused on evaluating specific locations on the foot. This study aimed to determine the intra- and inter-session agreement and reliability of pressure pain threshold measurements on the foot in a population of adults aged 55 to 75 years. Method: Using a JTECH Commander digital algometer, an experienced podiatrist measured the pressure pain thresholds at four locations on the sole of the dominant and non-dominant foot (head of the first metatarsal, head of the fifth metatarsal, pulp of the first toe, and center of the heel) in 15 male and 16 female volunteers aged 55 to 75. In each session, three pressure pain thresholds measurements were taken at each location. Measurements were repeated over three different sessions; the first and second sessions were 30 min apart, and the third session was 1 week later. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within- and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: Within-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 3Newtons (N) to 8N depending on the test location. Between session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 5N to 10N, and the CV ranged from 7.9% to 13.7% per location. The ICC values ranged from 0.76 to 0.91. Conclusions: A digital algometer can be used to measure pressure pain thresholds on the foot. Specifically, this study used this technique to evaluate PPT at four points on the plantar surface (head of the first and fifth metatarsals, pulp of the first toe, and center of the heel), and the results showed good to excellent reliability for within- and between-session measurements.
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.