AbstractBackground and aimsInvestigation of the multidimensional correlates of pressure pain threshold (PPT) requires the study of large cohorts, and thus the use of multiple raters, for sufficient statistical power. Although PPT testing has previously been shown to be reliable, the reliability of multiple raters and investigation for systematic bias between raters has not been reported.The aim of this study was to evaluate the intrarater and interrater reliability of PPT measurement by handheld algometer at the wrist, leg, cervical spine and lumbar spine. Additionally the study aimed to calculate sample sizes required for parallel and cross-over studies for various effect sizes accounting for measurement error.MethodsFive research assistants (RAs) each tested 20 pain free subjects at the wrist, leg, cervical and lumbar spine. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and systematic bias were calculated.ResultsBoth intrarater reliability (ICC = 0.81–0.99) and interrater reliability (ICC = 0.92–0.95) were excellent and intrarater SEM ranged from 79 to 100 kPa. There was systematic bias detected at three sites with no single rater tending to consistently rate higher or lower than others across all sites.ConclusionThe excellent ICCs observed in this study support the utility of using multiple RAs in large cohort studies using standardised protocols, with the caveat that an absence of any confounding of study estimates by rater is checked, due to systematic rater bias identified in this study.ImplicationsThorough training of raters using PPT results in excellent interrater reliability. Clinical trials using PPT as an outcome measure should utilise a priori sample size calculations.
Scandinavian Journal of Pain – de Gruyter
Published: Dec 29, 2017
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.
Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.
It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera