ArticleMuscle & nerve2025
Test-Retest Reliability of Perception Threshold Estimation in Small Cutaneous Nerve Fibers: A Methodological Investigation.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsNerve excitability testing of small cutaneous nerve fibers has been proposed as a new tool for investigating the underlying mechanisms of small fiber neuropathy. These assessments may be performed using perception threshold tracking with pin-electrodes that preferentially activate small cutaneous nerve fibers. In this study, the test-retest reliability of two perception threshold (PT) algorithms: the Psi method and the Method of Limits (MoL), was compared.
methodTwenty healthy subjects completed the study. Electrical stimulation was applied using a pin electrode, and the PT to a 1 ms rectangular pulse was estimated six times during two sessions separated by 1 week. The test-retest reliability was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the coefficient of variation (CV). The two PT algorithms were compared by limits of agreement (LoA).
resultsThe ICC indicated better within-session reliability (Psi: 0.77 and MoL: 0.81) than between-session reliability (Psi: 0.58 and MoL: 0.50) regardless of the algorithm used. The PTs were significantly lower when measured with the MoL (0.88 mA) compared to the estimates by the Psi (1.12 mA) method. DISCUSSION: The estimation of PT can be reliably assessed, especially within-session, with both the MoL and Psi methods. This allows for PT tracking, where PTs to different electrical stimulation provide an estimation of nerve fiber excitability. PT values obtained using different methods are not directly comparable.
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.