MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992023369 · doi:10.1097/ajp.0b013e3181643403

Validity of Cross-friction Algometry Procedure in Referred Muscle Pain Syndromes

2008· article· en· W1992023369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
André Farasyn, Romain Meeusen, Jo Nijs

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraclass correlationPhysical therapyMcGill Pain QuestionnaireThighMedian nervePhysical examinationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryVisual analogue scalePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Deep cross-friction pressure with a finger or an elbow in the proximal gluteal region causes a sciaticlike pain along the side of the thigh and the leg as a clinical presence of referred pain (RP) in patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). This study investigated the reliability and discriminative ability of experimentally provoked RP as a result of deep cross-friction with the aid of a Fischer algometer. The new clinical examination method measures the provoked RP threshold resulting in an outcome, expressed in kg/cm2. METHODS: Forty two patients with subacute LBP (3 to 12 wk) participated in a prospective clinical trial. The outcome was assessed by means of the standard (perpendicular) pressure pain thresholds (PPT) measured with the aid of a Fischer algometer on both sides of the gluteus medius, the provoked RP pain thresholds (PPT-RP) at the location of the medial superior cluneal nerve, the Oswestry Disability Index , and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. The diagnostic criteria for the clinical presence of RP were determined by the patient on the pain chart drawings of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. The criteria for provoked RP were determined by means of PPT-RP with the aid of a Fischer algometer until the patient pointed out the RP zone in the thigh and/or the leg. RESULTS: The interobserver reliability was sufficient for both sides with and without RP (intraclass correlation coefficient>0.97). The test-retest performed independently of the observers ranking, showed a perfect reliability of the PPT-RP measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient>0.98). The PPT-RP at the level of the medial superior cluneal nerve in the subgroup with a clinical presence of RP (N=20) was significantly higher (3.5 kg/cm2) than in the subgroup patients without RP (N=22). The correlation between the factor RP and the PPT-RP was high (R=0.91, P<0.001). The clinically important difference between provoked and clinical presence of RP was found to be higher or lower than 5.6 kg/cm2. The standard PPT measurement of the gluteus medius revealed no significant differences between the subgroups with and without RP. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study support the reliability and discriminative ability of a new method of experimentally provoked RP, using deep cross-friction pressure with the aid of a Fischer algometer in patients with LBP. The experimentally "provoked referred pain threshold" (PPT-RP) values lower than 6 kg/cm correspond clinically with the presence of a referred muscle pain area in the thigh and/or the leg. Further studies of a similar kind are nevertheless needed to confirm those conclusions and to assess the responsiveness of the provoked RP measurements in different treatment follow-up periods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207