Achtergrond: Pijn is een lastig te meten, subjectief fenomeen. Pijn wordt vaak gemeten met subjectieve self-reported vragenlijsten. Een andere manier om pijn vast te leggen is het objectief meten van de pijndrempel (Pressure Pain Threshold, PPT) door middel van het uitoefenen van mechanische druk met behulp van een drukalgometer. De pijndrempel is het punt waarop een persoon voor het eerst pijn opmerkt. Het is een bruikbare en betrouwbare manier om op een objectieve wijze de PPT in kaart te brengen. Normaalwaarden van pijndrempels en de invloed van diverse variabelen hierop zijn nog onbekend. Ook is nog onduidelijk of er binnen een individu verschillen kunnen zijn tussen de gevoeligheid voor pijn aan de dominante en niet-dominante zijde van het lichaam. Vraagstelling: Wat is de mate van variatie in pijndrempelwaarden op diverse locaties op het lichaam, gemeten met een drukalgometer, aan de dominante zijde ten opzichte van de niet-dominante zijde bij pijnvrije ouderen van 40 tot 85 jaar?”Methode: Bij gezonde deelnemers (zonder pijn) in de leeftijd van 40 tot 85 jaar werden pijndrempels gemeten op drie locaties rond de knie, twee locaties op de arm en één op het voorhoofd. Metingen werden op elke locatie drie keer verricht, met een tussenpose van 30 seconden. Dit werd gedaan op de dominante en niet-dominante zijde van het lichaam. Op elke locatie werd de gemiddelde pijndrempel van drie metingen berekend. Door middel van een ongepaarde t-toets werd per locatie de gemiddelde pijndrempel aan de dominante zijde vergeleken met de niet-dominante zijde. Resultaten: De steekproef bestond uit 53 deelnemers, waarvan 23 mannen (gemiddelde leeftijd 64,3 jaar ±13,3) en 30 vrouwen (gemiddelde leeftijd 55,5 jaar ±9,4), waarvan vijf linkshandige deelnemers en één linksbenige deelnemer. Gemiddelde pijndrempels waren op alle zes locaties aan de dominante zijde niet significant hoger dan aan de niet-dominante zijde (p<0,05). Conclusie: Er zijn geen significante verschillen in de hoogte van de pijndrempels aan de op dominante zijde ten opzichte van de niet-dominante zijde. Dit maakt het gebruik van pijndrempels eenvoudiger wanneer dit wordt toegepast in een klinische setting.Implicatie voor de fysiotherapie: Pijndrempelmetingen kunnen in de praktijk gebruikt worden om pijn objectief te meten. Hierbij hoeft er geen rekening gehouden te worden met de dominante of niet-dominante zijde van de arm en het been.
DOCUMENT
Background: Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type.Methods: Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined (i.e., the group representing novice assessors), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1,1).Results: Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9-16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from -55 to +32 kPa or from -9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC1,1: 0.87 to 0.95). Results were similar for both types of algometers.Conclusions: Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good.
DOCUMENT
BackgroundOcclusions of intravenous (IV) tubing can prevent vital and time-critical medication or solutions from being delivered into the bloodstream of patients receiving IV therapy. At low flow rates (≤ 1 ml/h) the alarm delay (time to an alert to the user) can be up to 2 h using conventional pressure threshold algorithms. In order to reduce alarm delays we developed and evaluated the performance of two new real-time occlusion detection algorithms and one co-occlusion detector that determines the correlation in trends in pressure changes for multiple pumps.MethodsBench-tested experimental runs were recorded in triplicate at rates of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 ml/h. Each run consisted of 10 min of non-occluded infusion followed by a period of occluded infusion of 10 min or until a conventional occlusion alarm at 400 mmHg occurred. The first algorithm based on binary logistic regression attempts to detect occlusions based on the pump’s administration rate Q(t) and pressure sensor readings P(t). The second algorithm continuously monitored whether the actual variation in the pressure exceeded a threshold of 2 standard deviations (SD) above the baseline pressure. When a pump detected an occlusion using the SD algorithm, a third algorithm correlated the pressures of multiple pumps to detect the presence of a shared occlusion. The algorithms were evaluated using 6 bench-tested baseline single-pump occlusion scenarios, 9 single-pump validation scenarios and 7 multi-pump co-occlusion scenarios (i.e. with flow rates of 1 + 1, 1 + 2, 1 + 4, 1 + 8, 1 + 16, and 1 + 32 ml/h respectively). Alarm delay was the primary performance measure.ResultsIn the baseline single-pump occlusion scenarios, the overall mean ± SD alarm delay of the regression and SD algorithms were 1.8 ± 0.8 min and 0.4 ± 0.2 min, respectively. Compared to the delay of the conventional alarm this corresponds to a mean time reduction of 76% (P = 0.003) and 95% (P = 0.001), respectively. In the validation scenarios the overall mean ± SD alarm delay of the regression and SD algorithms were respectively 1.8 ± 1.6 min and 0.3 ± 0.2 min, corresponding to a mean time reduction of 77% and 95%. In the multi-pump scenarios a correlation > 0.8 between multiple pump pressures after initial occlusion detection by the SD algorithm had a mean ± SD alarm delay of 0.4 ± 0.2 min. In 2 out of the 9 validation scenarios an occlusion was not detected by the regression algorithm before a conventional occlusion alarm occurred. Otherwise no occlusions were missed.ConclusionsIn single pumps, both the regression and SD algorithm considerably reduced alarm delay compared to conventional pressure limit-based detection. The SD algorithm appeared to be more robust than the regression algorithm. For multiple pumps the correlation algorithm reliably detected co-occlusions. The latter may be used to localize the segment of tubing in which the occlusion occurs.
LINK
Chronic widespread pain is highly present in patients with the Ehlers-Danlos syndrome hypermobility type (EDS-HT), but up to now, evidence for generalized hyperalgesia is lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate whether pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) at both symptomatic and asymptomatic body areas differ in EDS-HT patients compared to healthy subjects. Twenty-three women with EDS-HT and 23 gender- and age-matched healthy controls participated. All subjects marked on Margolis Pain Diagram where they felt pain lasting longer than 24 h in the past 4 weeks. Then, they completed several questionnaires assessing pain cognitions, fatigue, disability, and general health status, in order to take the possible influence of these factors on PPTs into account. Patients also completed a form concerning the type of pain they experienced. Thereupon, a blinded researcher assessed PPTs at 14 body locations on the trunk and extremities. PPTs were compared for the two complete groups. In addition, PPTs of patients and controls who did not report pain in a respective zone were compared. PPTs of the patients were significantly lower compared to those of the control group, also when pain-free samples per zone were compared. The mean (SD) PPT was 2.9 (1.62) kg/cm(2) in the EDS-HT patients and 5.2 (1.88) kg/cm(2) in the controls (P < 0.001). No confounding factors responsible for the observed differences could be revealed. In half of the patient group, a predominantly neuropathic pain component was likely present. This study provides evidence for the existence of hyperalgesia even in asymptomatic areas (generalized secondary hyperalgesia). The generalized hyperalgesia may represent the involvement of a sensitized central nervous system, which inquires an adapted pain management for this patient group.
DOCUMENT
Achtergrond: Pijn is een lastig te meten, subjectief fenomeen. Pijn wordt vaak gemeten met subjectieve self-reported vragenlijsten. Een andere manier om pijn vast te leggen is het objectief meten van de pijndrempel (Pressure Pain Threshold, PPT) door middel van het uitoefenen van mechanische druk met behulp van een drukalgometer. De pijndrempel is het punt waarop een persoon voor het eerst pijn opmerkt. Het is een bruikbare en betrouwbare manier om op een objectieve wijze de PPT in kaart te brengen. Referentiewaarden van pijndrempels en de invloed van diverse variabelen hierop zijn nog vrij onbekend. Ook is nog onduidelijk of er binnen een individu verschillen kunnen zijn tussen de gevoeligheid voor pijn aan de dominante en niet-dominante zijde van het lichaam. Vraagstelling: Wat is de mate van variatie in de hoogte van pijndrempelwaarden op diverse locaties op het lichaam, gemeten met een drukalgometer, aan de dominante zijde ten opzichte van de niet-dominante zijde bij pijnvrije ouderen van 40 tot 85 jaar?” Methode: Bij gezonde deelnemers (zonder pijn) in de leeftijd van 40 tot 85 jaar werden pijndrempels gemeten op drie locaties rond de knie, twee locaties op de arm en één op het voorhoofd. Metingen werden op elke locatie drie keer verricht, met een tussenpose van 30 seconden. Dit werd gedaan aan de dominante en niet-dominante zijde van het lichaam. Op elke locatie werd de gemiddelde pijndrempel van drie metingen berekend. Door middel van een ongepaarde t-toets werd per locatie de gemiddelde pijndrempel aan de dominante zijde vergeleken met de niet-dominante zijde. Resultaten: De steekproef bestond uit 53 deelnemers, waarvan 23 mannen (gemiddelde leeftijd 64,3 jaar ±13,3) en 30 vrouwen (gemiddelde leeftijd 55,5 jaar ±9,4), waarvan vijf linkshandige deelnemers en één linksbenige deelnemer. Gemiddelde pijndrempels waren op alle zes locaties aan de dominante zijde niet significant hoger dan aan de niet-dominante zijde (p<0,05). Conclusie: Er zijn geen significante verschillen in de hoogte van de pijndrempels aan de op dominante zijde ten opzichte van de niet-dominante zijde bij pijnvrije ouderen van 40 tot 85 jaar. Dit maakt het gebruik van pijndrempels eenvoudiger wanneer dit wordt toegepast in een klinische setting. Implicatie voor de fysiotherapie: Pijndrempelmetingen kunnen in de praktijk gebruikt worden om pijn objectief te meten. Hierbij hoeft er geen rekening gehouden te worden met de dominante of niet-dominante zijde van de arm en het been.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundWorking alliance can possibly influence patients’ experiences of pain and physical functioning. The aim of this systematic review is to merge evidence from literature regarding the influence of patients’ perceived working alliance on pain and physical functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.MethodsA systematic review in which randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were included that assessed the influence of working alliance on either pain or physical functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. The methodological quality of the included studies were rated by means of the PEDro score and STROBE statement.ResultsThe first step of the search process provided 1469 studies. After screening, five studies were included in this review including one RCT and four cohort studies of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. One cohort study was rated as low methodological quality and the other studies as high methodological quality. There was a significant effect of working alliance on the outcome of pain severity, pain interference, and physical functioning in all studies. Physical functioning was measured by means of questionnaires and functional capacity tests. The effect on questionnaires was positive; the effect was conflicting on functional capacity.ConclusionWhen influencing pain with treatment, a patient’s perceived working alliance during treatment does predict pain reduction and improvement in physical functioning. It is recommended to inquire about a patient’s working alliance during treatment in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.
DOCUMENT
Background: The modified painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ) is a self-reported questionnaire to discriminatebetween nociceptive and neuropathic-like pain in patients with knee/hip osteoarthritis (OA). This studyaims to assess the structural and construct validity of this questionnaire.Methods: Confirmatory factor analysis and hypothesis-testing was used. For 168 patients, predefinedhypotheses were formulated on the correlation between the modified painDETECT and several otherquestionnaires, and in a subsample of 46 with pain pressure thresholds (PPTs).Results: Two principal components were confirmed. The pain pattern item did not load on any component.Eighty per cent of the hypotheses on the correlation between modified PDQ and the questionnaireswere met, as were 50% concerning PPTs measurements.Conclusions: This study is the first to assess structural and construct validity of the modified PDQ knee/hip by using factor analysis and hypothesis-testing. This questionnaire seems to reflect neuropathic-like pain symptoms experienced by hip/knee OA-patients with adequate validity. The item on pain patternmight not reflect the construct. More than 75% of the predefined hypotheses regarding the modified PDQ and the other questionnaires were met. Only 50% of the hypotheses on PPTs measurements were met, probably due to heterogeneity and limited size of this subsample.
DOCUMENT
Background: Physical therapy is regarded an effective treatment for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Patients with TMD often report concomitant headache. There is, however, no overview of the effect of physical therapy for TMD on concomitant headache complaints. Objectives: The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the literature on the effectiveness of physical therapy on concomitant headache pain intensity in patients with TMD. Data sources: PubMed, Cochrane and PEDro were searched. Study eligibility criteria: Randomized or controlled clinical trials studying physical therapy interventions were included. Participants: Patients with TMD and headache. Appraisal: The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Synthesis methods: Individual and pooled between-group effect sizes were calculated according to the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: and manual therapy on both orofacial region and cervical spine. There is a very low level of certainty that TMD-treatment is effective on headache pain intensity, downgraded by high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Limitations: The methodological quality of most included articles was poor, and the interventions included were very different. Conclusions: Physical therapy interventions presented small effect on reducing headache pain intensity on subjects with TMD, with low level of certainty. More studies of higher methodological quality are needed so better conclusions could be taken.
DOCUMENT
Background: In postoperative pain treatment patients are asked to rate their pain experience on a single uni-dimensional pain scale. Such pain scores are also used as indicator to assess the quality of pain treatment. However, patients may differ in how they interpret the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score. Objectives: This study examines how patients assign a number to their currently experienced postoperative pain and which considerations influence this process. Methods: A qualitative approach according to grounded theory was used. Twenty-seven patients were interviewed one day after surgery. Results: Three main themes emerged that influenced the Numeric Rating Scale scores (0–10) that patients actually reported to professionals: score-related factors, intrapersonal factors, and the anticipated consequences of a given pain score. Anticipated consequences were analgesic administration—which could be desired or undesired—and possible judgements by professionals. We also propose a conceptual model for the relationship between factors that influence the pain rating process. Based on patients’ score-related and intrapersonal factors, a preliminary pain score was ‘‘internally’’ set. Before reporting the pain score to the healthcare professional, patients considered the anticipated consequences (i.e., expected judgements by professionals and anticipation of analgesic administration) of current Numeric Rating Scale scores. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the process of how patients translate their current postoperative pain into a numeric rating score. The proposed model may help professionals to understand the factors that influence a given Numeric Rating Scale score and suggest the most appropriate questions for clarification. In this way, patients and professionals may arrive at a shared understanding of the pain score, resulting in a tailored decision regarding the most appropriate treatment of current postoperative pain, particularly the dosing and timing of opioid administration.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: The etiology of pain in osteoarthritis (OA) is complex andmultifactorial. A growing number of studies suggest that modificationof pain-transmission in the peripheral and central nervous system,leading to sensitization, plays a role in OA pain. Sensitization seems tobe associated with neuropathic pain-like symptoms and assessment ofthese symptoms can help to identify patients who could benefit fromadditional treatment options. Several questionnaires are available todistinguish neuropathic from nociceptive pain symptoms. The modifiedpainDETECT questionnaire (mPDQ) is a self-reported questionnairedeveloped to discriminate between nociceptive- and possible/likelyneuropathic pain in knee OA patients. Recently the mPDQ was translatedinto Dutch and adjusted to also fit hip OA patients. The aim of thisstudy was to assess the validity of the mPDQ-NL in patients with hip orknee OA.Methods: Primary hip and knee OA patients were recruited from threeDutch hospitals. Based on previous research, confirmatory factor analysisfor two principal components was performed to assess structuralvalidity. Construct validity (both convergent and divergent) wasassessed using hypothesis testing. Predefined hypotheses were formulatedconcerning the correlation between the mPDQ-NL and theSelf-reported Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (SLANSS),subscales of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score/Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS/HOOS), VisualAnalogue Scale for pain (VAS pain), and subscales of the RAND-36health survey (RAND-36). According to the COSMIN criteria, constructvalidity of a questionnaire is sufficient if 75% of predefined hypothesesare met. Additionally, convergent validity was assessed with blunt PainPressure Thresholds (PPTs) in a subsample of participants. A reducedPPT is a somatosensory abnormality that is considered an indication ofsensitization in OA. Therefore it was expected that reduction of PPTswas associated with higher mPDQ scores.Results: 168 participants were included. PPT measurements wereperformed in a sample of 46 participants. Factor analysis confirmed twoprincipal components. The items that loaded on the first componentcould be described as “evoked neuropathic sensations”, the items thatloaded on the second component as “spontaneous neuropathic sensations”.However there were two items that substantially loaded on bothcomponents. The item regarding pain pattern did not load on anycomponent. Considering construct analysis, 80% of the predefinedhypotheses concerning the correlation between mPDQ and self-reportedquestionnaires were met. Considering the correlation with PPTmeasurements, 50% of the predefined hypotheses were met.Conclusions: The mPDQ-NL seems to adequately reflect neuropathicpain-like symptoms experienced by hip and knee OA patients. Concerningstructural validity, two determinative components seem to bepresent, in line with previous research. However, one particular itemregarding pain pattern might not reflect the construct of neuropathicpain-like symptoms in hip or knee OA. Therefore, when using the mPDQin hip or knee OA patients, it might be considered to skip this particularitem. Construct validity can be considered sufficient, with over 75% ofthe predefined hypotheses regarding correlation between the mPDQNLand other questionnaires were met. However, only 50% of the hypotheses concerning PPT measurements were met, probably due toheterogeneity and limited sample size of this subgroup. To ourknowledge, this study is the first to assess the structural validity of themPDQ knee and hip by using factor analysis and to assess constructvalidity using elaborate hypothesis testing as proposed by the COSMINguidelines.
DOCUMENT
