Beyond numbers: integrating qualitative analysis into quantitative sensory testing for neuropathic pain.
benefits
limitations
mixed approach
qualitative
quantitative
sensory testing
Journal
Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2673-561X
Titre abrégé: Front Pain Res (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9918227269806676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
06
12
2023
accepted:
16
02
2024
medline:
15
3
2024
pubmed:
15
3
2024
entrez:
15
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This article investigates the benefits of adopting qualitative and quantitative sensory testing (QQST) in sensory assessment, with a focus on understanding neuropathic pain. The innovative QQST method combines participant qualitative experiences with quantitative psychophysical measurements, offering a more varied interpretation of sensory abnormalities and normal sensory function. This article also explores the steps for the optimization of the method by identifying qualitative signs of sensory abnormalities and standardizing data collection. By leveraging the inherent subjectivity in the test design and participant responses, the QQST method contributes to a more holistic exploration of both normal and abnormal sensory experiences. This article positions the QQST approach as a foundational element within the Sensory Evaluation Network, uniting international experts to harmonize qualitative and quantitative sensory evaluation methods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38486872
doi: 10.3389/fpain.2024.1351602
pmc: PMC10938582
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1351602Informations de copyright
© 2024 Bordeleau, Vincenot, Bačkonja, Cruz-Almeida, Forstenpointner, Gauthier, Marchand, Mercier, Ocay, Prudhomme, Ruel, Vollert and Léonard.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
JF reports a grant (FO 1311/1-1) from the German Research Foundation (DFG); personal fees and non-financial support from Grünenthal GmbH and Sanofi Genzyme GmbH, personal fees from Bayer, non-financial support from Novartis, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.