MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118304652 · doi:10.3233/bmr-181208

Reliability of pressure pain threshold to discriminate individuals with neck and low back pain

2021· article· en· W3118304652 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Alexandre Martins Zicarelli, João Paulo M. Santos, Regina Célia Poli‐Frederico, Rubens Alexandre da Silva, Fabrice Barrilec, Gilles Barrette, Ligia Megumi Iida, Priscilla Russo, Lino L.S. Larangeira, Marcos Tadeu Parron Fernandes, Karen Barros Parron Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationMedicineNeck painLow back painPhysical therapyReliability (semiconductor)Intra-rater reliabilityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationConfidence intervalInternal medicinePsychometricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pressure pain threshold (PPT) is decreased in several musculoskeletal disorders, giving indirect evidence regarding pain status. Despite the fact that PPT has been already proven to be reliable in patients with acute conditions, there is great variability of methods and results observed within studies, and only a few evidences confirming its reliability in chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability of PPT in the neck and low back regions to discriminate individuals with neck or low back pain from healthy individuals. Additionally, one secondary aim was to establish the minimum detectable change (MDC) and the standard error of measurement for future clinical studies and interventions. METHODS: In this reliability study, 74 individuals (15 individuals from the neck pain and 17 from the neck control group; 21 individuals from the low back pain and 21 from the low back control group). PPT was measured in the neck region (suboccipital, trapezius and supraspinal muscles) and in the lower back region (paraspinal muscles in the levels of L1, L3 and L5). Intrarater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coeficient and Bland-Altman. RESULTS: Excellent intra-rater reliability was observed for both (ICC of 0.874 for the neck pain versus ICC of 0.895 in neck control group; ICC of 0.932 for the low back pain group versus ICC of 0.839 for the control group). A small bias was observed for all groups (-0.08 for the neck pain group versus 0.10 in the control group; and 0.32 in low back pain group versus 0.44 in the control group). Minimum detectable change of 0.63 kgf of neck pain and 1.21 kgf of low back pain was calculated. It was found difference in PPT between pain and control groups (p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: It may be suggested that the protocol with PPT is reliable and able to discriminate individuals with and without neck and low back pain with a minor measurement error. Therefore, this method may be used to detect possible progress after interventions in patients with neck or low back pain.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations44
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Back and Musculoskeletal RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207