Test-Retest Reliability of an Adaptive Thermal Pain Calibration Procedure in Healthy Volunteers

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) allows researchers to evaluate associations between noxious stimuli and acute pain in clinical populations and healthy participants. Despite its widespread use, our understanding of QST’s reliability is limited, as reliability studies have used small samples and restricted time windows. We examined the reliability of pain ratings in response to noxious thermal stimulation in 171 healthy volunteers (n = 99 female, n = 72 male) who completed QST on multiple visits ranging from 1 day to 952 days between visits. On each visit, participants underwent an adaptive pain calibration in which they experienced 24 heat trials and rated pain intensity after stimulus offset on a 0 to 10 Visual Analog Scale. We used linear regression to determine pain threshold, pain tolerance, and the correlation between temperature and pain for each session and examined the reliability of these measures. Threshold and tolerance were moderately reliable (Intra-class correlation = .66 and .67, respectively; P < .001), whereas temperature-pain correlations had low reliability (Intra-class correlation = .23). In addition, pain tolerance was significantly more reliable in female participants than male participants, and we observed similar trends for other pain sensitive measures. Our findings indicate that threshold and tolerance are largely consistent across visits, whereas sensitivity to changes in temperature vary over time and may be influenced by contextual factors. PERSPECTIVE: This article assesses the reliability of an adaptive thermal pain calibration procedure. We find that pain threshold and tolerance are moderately reliable whereas the correlation between pain rating and stimulus temperature has low reliability. Female participants were more reliable than male participants on all pain sensitivity measures.