TY - JOUR
T1 - Test-retest and interobserver reliability of quantitative sensory testing according to the protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS)
T2 - A multi-centre study
AU - Geber, Christian
AU - Klein, Thomas
AU - Azad, Shahnaz
AU - Birklein, Frank
AU - Gierthmühlen, Janne
AU - Huge, Volker
AU - Lauchart, Meike
AU - Nitzsche, Dorothee
AU - Stengel, Maike
AU - Valet, Michael
AU - Baron, Ralf
AU - Maier, Christoph
AU - Tölle, Thomas
AU - Treede, Rolf Detlef
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the DFNS (BMBF Grants 01EM0506 , 01EM0101 , 01EM0118 , 01EM0504 , and 01EM0502 ).
PY - 2011/3
Y1 - 2011/3
N2 - Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is an instrument to assess positive and negative sensory signs, helping to identify mechanisms underlying pathologic pain conditions. In this study, we evaluated the test-retest reliability (TR-R) and the interobserver reliability (IO-R) of QST in patients with sensory disturbances of different etiologies. In 4 centres, 60 patients (37 male and 23 female, 56.4 ± 1.9 years) with lesions or diseases of the somatosensory system were included. QST comprised 13 parameters including detection and pain thresholds for thermal and mechanical stimuli. QST was performed in the clinically most affected test area and a less or unaffected control area in a morning and an afternoon session on 2 consecutive days by examiner pairs (4 QSTs/patient). For both, TR-R and IO-R, there were high correlations (r = 0.80-0.93) at the affected test area, except for wind-up ratio (TR-R: r = 0.67; IO-R: r = 0.56) and paradoxical heat sensations (TR-R: r = 0.35; IO-R: r = 0.44). Mean IO-R (r = 0.83, 31% unexplained variance) was slightly lower than TR-R (r = 0.86, 26% unexplained variance, P < .05); the difference in variance amounted to 5%. There were no differences between study centres. In a subgroup with an unaffected control area (n = 43), reliabilities were significantly better in the test area (TR-R: r = 0.86; IO-R: r = 0.83) than in the control area (TR-R: r = 0.79; IO-R: r = 0.71, each P < .01), suggesting that disease-related systematic variance enhances reliability of QST. We conclude that standardized QST performed by trained examiners is a valuable diagnostic instrument with good test-retest and interobserver reliability within 2 days. With standardized training, observer bias is much lower than random variance. Quantitative sensory testing performed by trained examiners is a valuable diagnostic instrument with good interobserver and test-retest reliability for use in patients with sensory disturbances of different etiologies to help identify mechanisms of neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain.
AB - Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is an instrument to assess positive and negative sensory signs, helping to identify mechanisms underlying pathologic pain conditions. In this study, we evaluated the test-retest reliability (TR-R) and the interobserver reliability (IO-R) of QST in patients with sensory disturbances of different etiologies. In 4 centres, 60 patients (37 male and 23 female, 56.4 ± 1.9 years) with lesions or diseases of the somatosensory system were included. QST comprised 13 parameters including detection and pain thresholds for thermal and mechanical stimuli. QST was performed in the clinically most affected test area and a less or unaffected control area in a morning and an afternoon session on 2 consecutive days by examiner pairs (4 QSTs/patient). For both, TR-R and IO-R, there were high correlations (r = 0.80-0.93) at the affected test area, except for wind-up ratio (TR-R: r = 0.67; IO-R: r = 0.56) and paradoxical heat sensations (TR-R: r = 0.35; IO-R: r = 0.44). Mean IO-R (r = 0.83, 31% unexplained variance) was slightly lower than TR-R (r = 0.86, 26% unexplained variance, P < .05); the difference in variance amounted to 5%. There were no differences between study centres. In a subgroup with an unaffected control area (n = 43), reliabilities were significantly better in the test area (TR-R: r = 0.86; IO-R: r = 0.83) than in the control area (TR-R: r = 0.79; IO-R: r = 0.71, each P < .01), suggesting that disease-related systematic variance enhances reliability of QST. We conclude that standardized QST performed by trained examiners is a valuable diagnostic instrument with good test-retest and interobserver reliability within 2 days. With standardized training, observer bias is much lower than random variance. Quantitative sensory testing performed by trained examiners is a valuable diagnostic instrument with good interobserver and test-retest reliability for use in patients with sensory disturbances of different etiologies to help identify mechanisms of neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain.
KW - Diagnostic assessment
KW - Multi-centre
KW - Neuropathic pain
KW - Quantitative sensory testing (QST)
KW - Reliability
KW - Somatosensory profiles
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79851514507&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.013
DO - 10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.013
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:79851514507
SN - 0304-3959
VL - 152
SP - 548
EP - 556
JO - Pain
JF - Pain
IS - 3
ER -