Suzuki K, Baad-Hansen L, Svensson P
Section of Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Department of Dentistry, Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Scandinavian Center for Orofacial Neuroscience (SCON), Aarhus University, Denmark.
Eur J Pain. 2017 May;21(5):900-906. doi: 10.1002/ejp.992. Epub 2017 Jan 20.
Quantitative sensory testing (QST) relies on psychophysical techniques and instructions to test subjects. This study examined the effect of different verbal instructions for mechanical pain thresholds (MPTs) using two different stimulation techniques; weighted pinprick stimulators and an electronic von Frey device (EvF). The test-retest reliability and within session variability in the MPTs for each verbal instruction were compared in addition.
Sixteen healthy volunteers participated. The MPTs with two different verbal instructions (pinprick and pain) were evaluated with two different stimulation techniques at three test sites: on the skin of the right cheek (face), on the buccal gingival mucosa of the right upper premolar region (gingiva) and on the tip of the tongue (tongue). The exact same protocol was repeated 1-2 weeks later for test-retest reliability.
The MPT values with pain instruction were significantly higher than the values with the pinprick instruction for all sites and both stimulation techniques (p < .001). The absolute values of MPT were affected by instruction differences but it did not seem to have a major impact on reliability, and there were no significant differences in within session variability (p > .079) between the two different verbal instructions (pinprick and pain).
The specific wording of standardized QST instructions resulted in significant differences in MPT values regardless of which of the two stimulation techniques were used; pinprick stimulators or EvF. This emphasizes the importance of careful standardization of QST instructions in addition to standardization of the stimulus application.
Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a widely accepted tool for somatosensory testing and the reliability and variability in the QST test battery has been found to be acceptable. Changing minor details in the wording of standardized QST verbal instructions resulted in significant differences in mechanical pain thresholds. This emphasizes the importance of careful standardization of QST instructions in addition to standardization of the stimulus application.
定量感觉测试(QST)依靠心理物理学技术和对受试者的指导语。本研究使用两种不同的刺激技术,即加权针刺刺激器和电子von Frey装置(EvF),检验了不同言语指导语对机械痛阈(MPT)的影响。此外,还比较了每种言语指导语下MPT的重测信度和测试过程中的变异性。
16名健康志愿者参与研究。在三个测试部位,即右侧脸颊皮肤(面部)、右上颌前磨牙区颊侧牙龈黏膜(牙龈)和舌尖(舌头),采用两种不同的刺激技术对两种不同言语指导语(针刺和疼痛)下的MPT进行评估。1 - 2周后重复完全相同的方案以评估重测信度。
对于所有部位和两种刺激技术,疼痛指导语下的MPT值均显著高于针刺指导语下的值(p <.001)。MPT的绝对值受指导语差异的影响,但似乎对信度没有重大影响,两种不同言语指导语(针刺和疼痛)之间在测试过程中的变异性方面无显著差异(p >.079)。
无论使用两种刺激技术中的哪一种,即针刺刺激器或EvF,标准化QST指导语的具体措辞都会导致MPT值出现显著差异。这强调了除刺激应用标准化外,仔细规范QST指导语的重要性。
定量感觉测试(QST)是体感测试中广泛接受的工具,并且已发现QST测试组的信度和变异性是可接受的。标准化QST言语指导语措辞中的细微变化会导致机械痛阈出现显著差异。这强调了除刺激应用标准化外,仔细规范QST指导语的重要性。