The interrater and test-retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis

Sophia M Brady; Vasileios Georgopoulos; Jet J C S Veldhuijzen van Zanten; Joan L Duda; George S Metsios; George D Kitas; Sally A M Fenton; David A Walsh; Daniel F McWilliams

doi:10.1097/PR9.0000000000001102

The interrater and test-retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis

Pain Rep. 2023 Oct 10;8(6):e1102. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000001102. eCollection 2023 Dec.

Authors

Sophia M Brady^{1

2

3}, Vasileios Georgopoulos^{4

5}, Jet J C S Veldhuijzen van Zanten^{1

2

3}, Joan L Duda¹, George S Metsios^{2

6

7}, George D Kitas^{1

2}, Sally A M Fenton^{1

2

3}, David A Walsh^{4

5}, Daniel F McWilliams⁴

Affiliations

¹ School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
² Rheumatology Department, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom.
³ Medical Research Council-Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
⁴ Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Advanced Pain Discovery Platform & Academic Rheumatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
⁵ Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
⁶ Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Physical Education, Sport Science and Dietetics, University of Thessaly, Thessaly, Greece.
⁷ Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.

Abstract

Introduction: Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) modalities used to assess central pain mechanisms require different protocols in people with different musculoskeletal conditions.

Objectives: We aimed to explore the possible effects of musculoskeletal diagnosis and test site on QST interrater and test-retest reliability.

Methods: The study included participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 18; QST conducted on lower leg) and low back pain (LBP, n = 25; QST conducted on forearm), plus 45 healthy control participants (n = 20 QST on lower leg and n = 25 QST on forearm). Test-retest reliability was assessed from QST conducted 1 to 3 weeks apart. Quantitative sensory testing modalities used were pressure pain detection threshold (PPT) at a site distant to tissue pathology, temporal summation (TS), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Temporal summation was calculated as difference or ratio of single and repeated punctate stimuli and unconditioned thresholds for CPM used single or mean of multiple PPTs. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were compared between different subgroups.

Results: High to very high reliability was found for all assessments of PPT and TS across anatomical sites (lower leg and forearm) and participants (healthy, RA, and LBP) (ICC ≥ 0.77 for PPT and ICC ≥ 0.76 for TS). Reliability was higher when TS was calculated as a difference rather than a ratio. Conditioned pain modulation showed no to moderate reliability (ICC = 0.01-0.64) that was similar between leg or forearm, and between healthy people and those with RA or LBP.

Conclusion: PPT and TS are transferable tools to quantify pain sensitivity at different testing sites in different musculoskeletal diagnoses. Low apparent reliability of CPM protocols might indicate minute-to-minute dynamic pain modulation.

Keywords: Low back pain; Quantitative sensory testing; Reliability; Rheumatoid arthritis.