Jerez-Mayorga Daniel, Dos Anjos Carolina Fernanda, Macedo Maria de Cássia, Fernandes Ilha Gonçalves, Aedo-Muñoz Esteban, Intelangelo Leonardo, Barbosa Alexandre Carvalho
Facultad de Ciencias de la Rehabilitación, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Santiago, Chile.
Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
PeerJ. 2020 Oct 12;8:e10162. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10162. eCollection 2020.
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 ( = 0.51). The validity and internal intra-rater consistencies ranged from 0.84 to 0.99, and the standard error of measurement from 0.005 to 0.04 kPa. Very strong ( = 0.73-0.74) to near-perfect ( = 0.99) correlations were found, with a low risk of bias for all measurements. The results demonstrated the validity and intra-rater reliability of the digitally adapted pressure algometer. Inter-rater reliability results were moderate ( = 0.55-0.60; Cronbach's α = 0.71-0.75).
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.
疼痛评估是广泛临床环境中治疗过程的一项关键措施。一种低成本、有效且可靠的压力痛觉计能够实现对压力性疼痛的客观评估,从而帮助各类医疗专业人员。然而,压力痛觉计通常价格昂贵,这限制了其在临床和研究环境中的日常使用。
本研究旨在评估一种低成本数字适配压力痛觉计的仪器效度以及评分者内和评分者间信度。
一名评分者在一个测力平台上进行60次随机按压。两名评分者对20名志愿者的压力痛阈进行了两次测量(间隔3天)。主要测量结果如下:最大峰值力(以千帕为单位)以及压力痛阈(适配压力痛觉计与测力平台对比)。采用Cronbach's α检验评估内部一致性。测量标准误用于估计测量误差,测量偏倚采用Bland - Altman方法估计,并给出一致性界限的下限和上限。
比较按压结果时未观察到差异( = 0.51)。效度和评分者内一致性范围为0.84至0.99,测量标准误为0.005至0.04千帕。发现了非常强( = 0.73 - 0.74)至近乎完美( = 0.99)的相关性,所有测量的偏倚风险较低。结果证明了数字适配压力痛觉计的效度和评分者内信度。评分者间信度结果为中等( = 0.55 - 0.60;Cronbach's α = 0.71 - 0.75)。
适配压力痛觉计能够对压力痛阈进行有效且可靠的测量。这些结果支持临床医生更广泛地使用压力痛阈方法。