Open AccessAn Improvement of Mechanical Pain Sensitivity Measurement Method: The Smaller Sized Probes may Detect Heterogeneous Sensory Threshold in Healthy Male Subjects
Author(s) -
Duan Guangyou,
Xiang Guifang,
Zhang Xianwei,
Guo Shanna,
Zhang Yuhao
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
pain medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.893
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1526-4637
pISSN - 1526-2375
DOI - 10.1111/pme.12245
Subject(s) - stimulus (psychology) , medicine , threshold of pain , sensation , quantitative sensory testing , sensory threshold , pain tolerance , detection threshold , audiology , pain sensation , sensory system , physical therapy , anesthesia , psychology , computer science , neuroscience , real time computing , psychotherapist , cognitive science
Objective On the basis of our experience in the application of the mechanical algometer and a number of pilot experiments, we speculated that 0.1‐ and 0.01‐cm 2 probes might improve the measurement of mechanical pain sensitivity relative to the conventional 1‐cm 2 probe. Here, we examined the accuracy, feasibility, and applicability of these probes in detecting the mechanical pain sensitivity. Design Mechanical pain threshold and tolerance tests were performed on subjects using the three probes of 1, 0.1, and 0.01 cm 2 in random order. We compared the application of these probes. Setting The study was set at the T ongji M edical C ollege, H uazhong U niversity of S cience and T echnology, W uhan, C hina.Subjects Fifty healthy male H an C hinese subjects were recruited. Outcome Measures We compared the qualities of stimulus‐evoked pain, test stability, the measuring time, the subjects' acceptance level of the procedure, the validity of pain measurement, and the arduousness of the task for the investigator among the three different size probes. Results Compared with the conventional 1‐cm 2 probe, the 0.01‐ and 0.1‐cm 2 probes resulted in the subjects responding to stimulus‐evoked pain more quickly, accurately, and consistently, and also made the measurement more comfortable for investigators. Up to 80% of the subjects reported the pain quality as a pricking sensation when the 0.01‐cm 2 probe was used. Conclusion The use of the 0.1‐cm 2 probe might be more suitable as an optimized method for the detection of pressure pain sensitivity in clinical studies. In addition, the 0.01‐cm 2 probe could potentially serve as an alternative to the weighted needle pinprick, providing continuous quantizing detection for pricking pain sensitivity.