ArticleTurkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation2026
Challenges in the application of Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing: Practitioner-related variables
Article in Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The Semmes-Weinstein monofilament (SWM) test is commonly used to evaluate tactile sensation in individuals with neurological or orthopedic conditions. This study aimed to examine practitioner-related factors affecting SWM testing, particularly focusing on adherence to protocol guidelines and the accuracy of force-controlled application, and to assess the intra-rater reliability of the measurements obtained. Patients and Methods: Fifty-three inexperienced occupational therapists, trained in SWM application, participated in the study. Standardized tests were conducted using three monofilaments (4.31/2 g, 4.56/4 g, 5.07/10 g). A specialized instrument measurement system recorded maximum buckling forces (Max F), contact durations (T), and intervals between applications (L). Participants applied each filament perpendicularly to the sensor three times consecutively with 1.5-second intervals. Intrarater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: None of the participants achieved the exact prescribed buckling forces. Significant differences were observed between the prescribed buckling forces, application times, and intervals (p<0.05). However, each participant showed consistency across repeated trials (p>0.05). ICCs indicated good-to-excellent reliability for Max F, T, and L. Conclusion: Most errors in SWM testing were due to incorrect buckling force and failure to adhere to application timing. Future research should focus on improving practitioner training and minimizing variability in SWM test performance.
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.