Clinical Pressure Pain Threshold Testing in Neck Pain: Comparing Protocols, Responsiveness, and Association With Psychological Variables. Issue 6 (1st June 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Walton, David M.; Levesque, Lenerdene; Payne, Martin; Schick, Julie
• Is Part Of: Physical therapy. Volume 94:Issue 6(2014)
• Page Start: 827
• Page End: 837
• Publication Date: 2014-06-01
• Subjects: Physical therapy -- Periodicals; Physical therapy; Physical Therapy Modalities; Rehabilitation; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Periodicals; 615.8205
• DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130369
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9023

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Quantitative sensory testing, including pressure pain threshold (PPT), is seeing increased use in clinical practice. In order to facilitate clinical utility, knowledge of the properties of the tool and interpretation of results are required. Objectives: This observational study used a clinical sample of people with mechanical neck pain to determine: (1) the influence of number of testing repetitions on measurement properties, (2) reliability and minimum clinically important difference, and (3) associations between PPT and key psychological constructs. Design: This study was observational with both cross-sectional and prospective elements. Methods: Experienced clinicians measured PPT in patients with mechanical neck pain following a standardized protocol. Subcohorts also provided repeated measures and completed scales of key psychological constructs. Results: The total sample was 206 participants, but not all participants provided data for all analyses. Interrater and 1-week test-retest reliability were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients [2, 1]=.75–.95). Potentially important differences in reliability and PPT scores were found when using only 1 or 2 repeated measures compared with all 3. The PPT over a distal location (tibialis anterior muscle) was not adequately responsive in this sample, but the local site (upper trapezius muscle) was responsive and may be useful as part of a protocol to evaluate clinical change. Sensitivity values (range=0.08–0.50) and specificity values (range=0.82–0.97) for a range of change scores are presented. Depression, catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia were able to explain small but statistically significant variance in local PPT (3.9%–5.9%), but only catastrophizing and kinesiophobia explained significant variance in the distal PPT (3.6% and 2.9%, respectively). Limitations: Limitations of the study include multiple raters, unknown recruitment rates, and unknown measurement properties at sites other than those tested here. Conclusions: The results suggest that PPT is adequately reliable and that 3 measurements should be taken to maximize measurement properties. The variance explained by the psychological variables was small but significant for 3 constructs related to catastrophizing, depression, and fear of movement. Clinical implications for application and interpretation of PPT are discussed.