Relative and absolute test-retest reliabilities of pressure pain threshold in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pressure pain threshold (PPT) and PPT maps are commonly used to quantify and visualize mechanical pain sensitivity. Although PPT's have frequently been reported from patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), the absolute and relative reliability of PPT assessments remain to be determined. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the test-retest relative and absolute reliability of PPT in KOA. For that purpose, intra- and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as well as the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable change (MDC) values within eight anatomical locations covering the most painful knee of KOA patients was measured. METHODS: Twenty KOA patients participated in two sessions with a period of 2 weeks±3 days apart. PPT's were assessed over eight anatomical locations covering the knee and two remote locations over tibialis anterior and brachioradialis. The patients rated their maximum pain intensity during the past 24 h and prior to the recordings on a visual analog scale (VAS), and completed The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and PainDetect surveys. The ICC, SEM and MDC between the sessions were assessed. The ICC for the individual variability was expressed with coefficient of variance (CV). Bland-Altman plots were used to assess potential bias in the dataset. RESULTS: The ICC ranged from 0.85 to 0.96 for all the anatomical locations which is considered "almost perfect". CV was lowest in session 1 and ranged from 44.2 to 57.6%. SEM for comparison ranged between 34 and 71 kPa and MDC ranged between 93 and 197 kPa with a mean PPT ranged from 273.5 to 367.7 kPa in session 1 and 268.1-331.3 kPa in session 2. The analysis of Bland-Altman plot showed no systematic bias. PPT maps showed that the patients had lower thresholds in session 2, but no significant difference was observed for the comparison between the sessions for PPT or VAS. No correlations were seen between PainDetect and PPT and PainDetect and WOMAC. CONCLUSIONS: Almost perfect relative and absolute reliabilities were found for the assessment of PPT's for KOA patients. IMPLICATIONS: The present investigation implicates that PPT's is reliable for assessing pain sensitivity and sensitization in KOA patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".