Trial reportPeerJ2026
Reliability of a pressure pain threshold protocol: secondary analysis of a longitudinal trial with cluster randomization.
Trial report in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) measurement is a useful method for assessing pain sensitivity when applied with a standardized protocol. However, little is known about the longitudinal stability of reliability estimates when PPT protocols are embedded in randomized controlled trials. This study aimed to estimate the relative and absolute reliability of a PPT algometry protocol in office workers across multiple time points within a six-month pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted from a cluster randomized controlled trial with office workers, where a standardized PPT protocol was applied to the neck, forearm, and lower leg. Measurements were taken bilaterally with three repetitions per site. Measurement reliability was assessed with a two-way mixed-effects intraclass correlation (ICC) model for absolute agreement (3, k), along with the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC), calculated at baseline, three, and six months, for both intervention and control groups. Results: ICC values ranged from 0.84 to 0.95, indicating good to excellent reliability across all time points and body regions. SEM ranged from 0.23 kg/cm Conclusions: The PPT protocol demonstrated high measurement reliability and stable properties over time for each anatomic region and both groups, supporting its use in longitudinal assessments of pain sensitivity in occupational and clinical settings.
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.