Abstract
Background and purpose:
Pain is a prevalent public health problem. However, currently there are no validated tools to monitor temporal pain continuously. This study aimed to investigate the within-day test-retest reliability and validity of a novel pneumatic perceived pain meter (PM).
Methods:
This experiment divided into two parts. Part I comprised
squeezing the pressure gauge to 10 pre-determined levels
for three times (i.e. a total of 30 times) in a random order
without visual feedback. Only the first 15 trials were provided with verbal feedback. Part II began with attaining 50˚C of skin temperature by applying a heat pack on the prominent region of left calf muscles for 2 minutes. Then, the 50˚C heat pack was
instantaneously removed and 2g of 0.075% capsaicin cream
was applied to the calf muscles (3cm × 3cm), with the heat
pack immediately replaced back to the calf for another
3 minutes. The heat pack was then removed and participants were monitored for another 2 minutes. Throughout the 7 minutes, the pain ratings were measured every 30 seconds, with a total of 14 separate time points. Within-day test-retest reliability and validity were assessed.
Results:
A moderate to good reliability was shown with and without verbal feedback (ICC range 0.76-0.82). The SEM and MDC95 of the PM were 1.09 and 3.03 respectively. The PM showed concurrent validity with NPRS. Pearson’s correlation coefficient r was 0.84 (p ≤ 0.001).
Conclusion:
The PM is a reliable and valid pain assessment tool in the
absence of visual and verbal feedback
Pain is a prevalent public health problem. However, currently there are no validated tools to monitor temporal pain continuously. This study aimed to investigate the within-day test-retest reliability and validity of a novel pneumatic perceived pain meter (PM).
Methods:
This experiment divided into two parts. Part I comprised
squeezing the pressure gauge to 10 pre-determined levels
for three times (i.e. a total of 30 times) in a random order
without visual feedback. Only the first 15 trials were provided with verbal feedback. Part II began with attaining 50˚C of skin temperature by applying a heat pack on the prominent region of left calf muscles for 2 minutes. Then, the 50˚C heat pack was
instantaneously removed and 2g of 0.075% capsaicin cream
was applied to the calf muscles (3cm × 3cm), with the heat
pack immediately replaced back to the calf for another
3 minutes. The heat pack was then removed and participants were monitored for another 2 minutes. Throughout the 7 minutes, the pain ratings were measured every 30 seconds, with a total of 14 separate time points. Within-day test-retest reliability and validity were assessed.
Results:
A moderate to good reliability was shown with and without verbal feedback (ICC range 0.76-0.82). The SEM and MDC95 of the PM were 1.09 and 3.03 respectively. The PM showed concurrent validity with NPRS. Pearson’s correlation coefficient r was 0.84 (p ≤ 0.001).
Conclusion:
The PM is a reliable and valid pain assessment tool in the
absence of visual and verbal feedback
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 10 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 24 Jun 2023 |
| Event | Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association 60th Anniversary Conference - Tsuen Wan , Hong Kong Duration: 24 Jun 2023 → 24 Jun 2023 |
Conference
| Conference | Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association 60th Anniversary Conference |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | Hong Kong |
| City | Tsuen Wan |
| Period | 24/06/23 → 24/06/23 |
Keywords
- pain
- pain meter
- Experimental pain