Research reportThe repeatability of pressure algometry in asymptomatic individuals over consecutive days
Introduction
Palpation provides relevant information about underlying tissue and the nociceptive system,1 however, quantification of tenderness by palpation is subjective, and makes comparison over time periods and between patients difficult, in both clinical and research settings. The application of pressure by a device to a tissue has the advantage of triggering the same type of nociceptors as that of palpation.2 A controlled application of pressure, as applied with an algometer, may therefore be a more appropriate technique for quantifying pain thresholds and pain tolerance levels of various musculoskeletal tissues. Algometry is also appropriate given the rate of application of pressure and the direction of the pressure being applied can be controlled.3
Pressure algometry has been described as a semi-objective method, or subjective measure,4 for establishing the pressure pain threshold (PPT) of various tissues. The PPT is defined as the minimum amount of pressure which induces pain or tenderness.5, 6 The use of pressure algometry has been demonstrated in many studies to be a reliable and repeatable tool for quantifying local pain and tenderness in various tissues.5, 7, 8 PPT values have been used in studying a variety of musculoskeletal conditions including fibromyalgia, headaches (such as cervicogenic and tension-type headaches), arthritis, spinal conditions, and Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness.9, 10
Much of the previous literature investigating the effect of repeated PPT measurements on musculoskeletal tissues has focused on soft tissues, with most studies demonstrating reliability over repeated measures.5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13 Two studies1, 9 have investigated the effect of repeated algometry in the spine however none have investigated the stability of PPT measurements over consecutive days. Keating et al.1 tested the repeatability of electronic algometry over a short period of time (30 min) on four spinal segments (C6, T4, T6, L4), using the mean of three trials on each segment. Sterling et al.9 investigated repeatability over a longer period of time (one week between testing) on two segments of the cervical spine, using only one trial on each segment. Both of these studies demonstrated that the PPT was stable over both short and long durations.
Concurrent validity testing of the electronic pressure algometer used in this study was conducted by Vaughan et al.14 Results obtained were similar for all rates of pressure application according to the standard correlation-based measure (ICC > 0.9). However, when tested for equality the two data sets were not significantly the same. These authors suggested that future studies investigate the validity and repeatability of the device, particularly with human tissues, as it was implied that repeated application of force may lead to an erroneous result.
The aim of the present study was to determine if electronic pressure algometry was a repeatable measure of spinal pressure-pain thresholds in asymptomatic individuals. In particular, the study investigated if repeated measurements on the same spinal site affected the stability of the PPT measures over consecutive days, and to determine if reliability differed in each of the three regions of the spine.
Section snippets
Participants
Thirty-three (N = 33) asymptomatic participants were recruited from the student population at Victoria University. Twenty female and thirteen male participants were recruited with a mean age of 19.36 ± 2.23 years. Participants were excluded if they had current complaints of cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine pain, pain syndromes (e.g. fibromyalgia), were currently seeking manual therapy treatment or using analgesic/NSAID medication for a spine complaint. Participants were also excluded if they
Results
A total of 297 measurements for each spinal segment were collected providing a total of 891 PPT values over the 3 days of the study. Table 2 reports the PPT mean and standard deviation for each segment for each individual day of testing, as well as the mean PPT value of each segment obtained from all measurements over the three days. The standard deviation values of Table 2 demonstrate a wide variability of the mean PPT values for each segment.
Table 3 reports the day-to-day repeatability of PPT
Discussion
The data obtained from this study suggests that electronic pressure algometry is a repeatable and statistically stable method for evaluating the PPT of the lumbar and cervical spine over consecutive days. Repeated PPT measurements of the specified segments of the spine were shown to be of a high concordance over the three consecutive days with the exception of the correlation between the mean trials of day 1 and day 3 for the T6 segment. The lower ICC value of this correlation (ICC = 0.676) is
Conclusion
Spinal PPT assessment by electronic algometry is repeatable, both between and within-sessions. This study has demonstrated that with a trained examiner, assessment of the PPT using electronic pressure algometry is reliable at different spinal segments over consecutive days. The method utilised in the present study may be useful for symptomatic individuals with primary spinal complaints however further investigation is required.
Statement of competing interests
Brett Vaughan is a member of the Editorial Board of the Int J Osteopath Med but was not involved in review or editorial decisions regarding this manuscript.
Author contribution statement
PMcL and BV developed the idea for the study and developed the method. LF undertook the data collection. LF, PMcL and BV undertook the data analysis and developed the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Jane Mulcahy for her review of the manuscript.
References (18)
- et al.
Mid-thoracic tenderness: a comparison of pressure pain threshold between spinal regions, in asymptomatic subjects
Man Ther
(2001) - et al.
Electronic pressure algometry of deep pain in healthy volunteers
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(1993) Pressure algometry
Aust J Physiother
(2007)- et al.
Reliability of the pressure algometer as a measure of myofascial trigger point sensitivity
Pain
(1986) - et al.
Pressure algometry in manual therapy
Man Ther
(1996) - et al.
Pressure-pain threshold in human temporal region: evaluation of a new pressure algometer
Pain
(1986) - et al.
Pressure-pain thresholds in normal muscles: reliability, measurement effects, and topographic differences
Pain
(1989) - et al.
Algometer reliability in measuring pain pressure threshold over normal spinal muscles to muscles to allow quantification of anti-nociceptive treatment effects
Int J Ost Med
(2006) - et al.
Validity of a pressure algometer
Int J Ost Med
(2007)
Cited by (26)
Effect of kinesio-taping on the acute phase of the post-operative reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: A randomized controlled trial
2023, Journal of Bodywork and Movement TherapiesPersonal influencing factors for pressure pain threshold in healthy people: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2022, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsCitation Excerpt :A pressure sensation stimulates C- or Aδ- fibres in the skin, of which a signal goes through the anterior spinothalamic tract until it reaches the thalamus in the brain, which processes the information before sending it out to various parts of the cortex (Yam et al., 2018). To determine the PPT, usually an algometer is used, which is found to be reliable and valid (Frank et al., 2013). To date, PPT values could be a useful measure for possible signs of altered somatosensory processing, and thus to detect differences between healthy and patient populations (diagnostic) or changes over time (e.g., before and after treatment, responsive) (Jaber et al., 2018; Arendt-Nielsen and Yarnitsky, 2009; Walton et al., 2011).
Comparison of Dry Needling and Inhibitory Kinesio Taping in Treatment of Myofascial Pain Syndrome of the Upper Trapezius Muscle: A Randomized Controlled Trial
2022, Journal of Chiropractic MedicineCitation Excerpt :The examiner pressed the trigger point with the algometer tip perpendicular to the skin and recorded the pressure at the precise moment when the participant reported a sensation of pain. This measurement was repeated 3 times at 1-minute intervals, and the mean of the 3 measurements was taken as the PPT.30 The morphologic measurement of the soft tissue using an ultrasound device is a valid, reliable, safe, noninvasive, and relatively inexpensive method.31
Assessment of pressure sensitivity in the head region for Chinese adults
2021, Applied ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :One of the most commonly used techniques to measure psychometric data's test-retest reliability is Intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis. Several researchers have used this approach (Cathcart and Pritchard, 2006; Frank et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2007; Xiong et al., 2010; Ylinen et al., 2007) in the past. Sixty Chinese adult participants (30 males and 30 females) who had previously participated in the study were invited again to participate in this study after a minimum gap of two months.
Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and myofascial release compared with spinal manipulation alone on health-related outcomes in individuals with non-specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial
2020, Physiotherapy (United Kingdom)Citation Excerpt :For the assessment, participants were positioned in prone on a massage table. All points assessed were marked with a pen and three measurements were taken at each site, with a 30-seconds interval between them [32]. The mean of the three measurements was used for analysis.
The acute effect of Bowen therapy on pressure pain thresholds and postural sway in healthy subjects
2017, Journal of Bodywork and Movement TherapiesCitation Excerpt :The participant was asked to say “pain” when the pressure first changed to pain. These procedures are in line with international recommendations and aim to increase the reliability of data (Chesterton et al., 2007; Frank et al., 2013; Lacourt et al., 2013). The pressure algometer is valid for the measurement of pressure when compared to a force platform (r = 0.99) (Kinser et al., 2009).