Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.
Allied Health Services, Logan Hospital, Metro South Health, Logan, QLD, Australia.
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7640649. doi: 10.1155/2017/7640649. Epub 2017 Aug 2.
Cold pain threshold (CPT) measures an individual's pain threshold in response to a cold stimulus. CPT is most accurately determined with specialised equipment; however this technology is not readily accessible to clinicians. Instead, ice has been employed to measure CPT. An optimal ice protocol has not yet been identified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of two CPT protocols using ice in a young, healthy population. Twenty-two participants aged 22.6 (SD 1.81) years underwent CPT measurements over 6 anatomical sites across 3 protocols, which were repeated in 2 sessions. One protocol measured pain (PVAS) following ice applied for a standardised period of 30 seconds; a second protocol measured time to onset of pain, and the reference standard measured CPT using laboratory equipment (TSA-II). The PVAS protocol demonstrated the best reliability (mean ICC 0.783, 95% CI 0.706 to 0.841), but the Timed protocol demonstrated superior validity compared to the reference standard (mean ICC -0.504, 95% CI -0.621 to -0.365).
冷痛阈值 (CPT) 测量个体对冷刺激的疼痛阈值。CPT 最准确的测量方法是使用专门的设备;然而,这种技术对临床医生来说并不容易获得。相反,冰已被用于测量 CPT。目前还没有确定最佳的冰协议。本研究的目的是评估两种使用冰的 CPT 方案在年轻健康人群中的可靠性和有效性。22 名年龄在 22.6(SD 1.81)岁的参与者在 3 个方案的 6 个解剖部位进行了 CPT 测量,每个方案在 2 个会话中重复测量。一个方案在标准的 30 秒冰敷后测量疼痛(PVAS);第二个方案测量疼痛发作的时间,参考标准使用实验室设备(TSA-II)测量 CPT。PVAS 方案显示出最佳的可靠性(平均 ICC 0.783,95% CI 0.706 至 0.841),但定时方案与参考标准相比具有更高的有效性(平均 ICC -0.504,95% CI -0.621 至 -0.365)。