Instrumental validity and intra/inter-rater reliability of a novel low-cost digital pressure algometer.
Inexpensive
Pain assessment
Pressure algometry
Pressure pain threshold
Reliability
Validity
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
05
03
2020
accepted:
21
09
2020
entrez:
21
10
2020
pubmed:
22
10
2020
medline:
22
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pain assessment is a key measure that accompanies treatments in a wide range of clinical settings. A low-cost valid and reliable pressure algometer would allow objective assessment of pressure pain to assist a variety of health professionals. However, the pressure algometer is often expensive, which limits its daily use in both clinical and research settings. This study aimed to assess the instrumental validity, and the intra- and inter-rater reliability of an inexpensive digital adapted pressure algometer. A single rater applied 60 random compressions on a force platform. The pressure pain thresholds of 20 volunteers were collected twice (3 days apart) by two raters. The main outcome measurements were as follows: the maximal peak force (in kPa) and the pressure pain threshold (adapted pressure algometer vs. force platform). Cronbach's α test was used to assess internal consistency. The standard error of measurement provided estimates of measurement error, and the measurement bias was estimated with the Bland-Altman method, with lower and upper limits of agreement. No differences were observed when comparing the compression results ( The adapted pressure algometer provide valid and reliable measurements of pressure pain threshold. The results support more widespread use of the pressure pain threshold method among clinicians.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pain assessment is a key measure that accompanies treatments in a wide range of clinical settings. A low-cost valid and reliable pressure algometer would allow objective assessment of pressure pain to assist a variety of health professionals. However, the pressure algometer is often expensive, which limits its daily use in both clinical and research settings.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess the instrumental validity, and the intra- and inter-rater reliability of an inexpensive digital adapted pressure algometer.
METHODS
METHODS
A single rater applied 60 random compressions on a force platform. The pressure pain thresholds of 20 volunteers were collected twice (3 days apart) by two raters. The main outcome measurements were as follows: the maximal peak force (in kPa) and the pressure pain threshold (adapted pressure algometer vs. force platform). Cronbach's α test was used to assess internal consistency. The standard error of measurement provided estimates of measurement error, and the measurement bias was estimated with the Bland-Altman method, with lower and upper limits of agreement.
RESULTS
RESULTS
No differences were observed when comparing the compression results (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The adapted pressure algometer provide valid and reliable measurements of pressure pain threshold. The results support more widespread use of the pressure pain threshold method among clinicians.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33083153
doi: 10.7717/peerj.10162
pii: 10162
pmc: PMC7560318
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e10162Informations de copyright
© 2020 Jerez-Mayorga et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
J Oral Rehabil. 2014 May;41(5):323-9
pubmed: 24612404
Behav Res Methods. 2015 Mar;47(1):216-27
pubmed: 24570335
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2015 Mar-Apr;38(3):232-43
pubmed: 25616692
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:3052954
pubmed: 27073401
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Acta Chir Hung. 1997;36(1-4):166-7
pubmed: 9408331
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Sep;41(9):644-50
pubmed: 21885906
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Jan;41(1):3-13
pubmed: 19092709
J Pain Res. 2018 Jan 18;11:215-225
pubmed: 29403305
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Jan;89(1):16-23
pubmed: 18164325
Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2017 Jul-Sep;26(3):649-659
pubmed: 28977189
Scand J Pain. 2017 Dec 29;9(1):38-41
pubmed: 29911647
Man Ther. 2007 May;12(2):192-7
pubmed: 16956783
Eur J Pain. 2013 Oct;17(9):1316-26
pubmed: 23576531
Br J Anaesth. 2013 Jul;111(1):52-8
pubmed: 23794645
J Biomech. 2016 Dec 8;49(16):4142-4145
pubmed: 27789036
J Appl Oral Sci. 2016 May-Jun;24(3):188-97
pubmed: 27383698
J Headache Pain. 2018 Jan 26;19(1):9
pubmed: 29374331
Phys Ther. 1998 Feb;78(2):160-9
pubmed: 9474108
Pain. 1998 Aug;77(2):143-9
pubmed: 9766832
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Jan-Mar;32(1):74-9
pubmed: 27006546
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Nov 15;38(24):2098-107
pubmed: 24026153
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Jan;93(1):75-81
pubmed: 23900013
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2018 Mar;58(3):227-232
pubmed: 27653154
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Aug 18;17(1):350
pubmed: 27538914
J Man Manip Ther. 2018 Feb;26(1):25-35
pubmed: 29456445
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013 Feb;43(2):31-43
pubmed: 23322093
Man Ther. 2016 Feb;21:134-43
pubmed: 26238456
J Grad Med Educ. 2011 Jun;3(2):119-20
pubmed: 22655129
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):312-4
pubmed: 19130648
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016 Mar-Apr;34(2 Suppl 96):S14-25
pubmed: 26812139
Pain Med. 2013 Sep;14(9):1291-300
pubmed: 23742198
J Sci Med Sport. 2011 Nov;14(6):477-81
pubmed: 21669552
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2016 Jul;20(3):525-32
pubmed: 27634074