Cargando…

High concurrent validity between digital and analogue algometers to measure pressure pain thresholds in healthy participants and people with migraine: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) are commonly assessed to quantify mechanical sensitivity in various conditions, including migraine. Digital and analogue algometers are used, but the concurrent validity between these algometers is unknown. Therefore, we assessed the concurrent validity be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Castien, René F., Coppieters, Michel W., Durge, Tom S. C., Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolyne G. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Milan 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8276500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34253164
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10194-021-01278-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) are commonly assessed to quantify mechanical sensitivity in various conditions, including migraine. Digital and analogue algometers are used, but the concurrent validity between these algometers is unknown. Therefore, we assessed the concurrent validity between a digital and analogue algometer to determine PPTs in healthy participants and people with migraine. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy participants and twenty-nine people with migraine participated in the study. PPTs were measured interictally and bilaterally at the cephalic region (temporal muscle, C1 paraspinal muscles, and trapezius muscle) and extra-cephalic region (extensor carpi radialis muscle and tibialis anterior muscle). PPTs were first determined with a digital algometer, followed by an analogue algometer. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC(3.1)) and limits of agreement were calculated to quantify concurrent validity. RESULTS: The concurrent validity between algometers in both groups was moderate to excellent (ICC(3.1) ranged from 0.82 to 0.99, with 95%CI: 0.65 to 0.99). Although PPTs measured with the analogue algometer were higher at most locations in both groups (p < 0.05), the mean differences between both devices were less than 18.3 kPa. The variation in methods, such as a hand-held switch (digital algometer) versus verbal commands (analogue algometer) to indicate when the threshold was reached, may explain these differences in scores. The limits of agreement varied per location and between healthy participants and people with migraine. CONCLUSION: The concurrent validity between the digital and analogue algometer is excellent in healthy participants and moderate in people with migraine. Both types of algometer are well-suited for research and clinical practice but are not exchangeable within a study or patient follow-up.