4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Can within-subject comparisons of thermal thresholds be used for diagnostic purposes?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • Normal limits for within-subject comparisons of thermal thresholds are wide.

          • Our findings advocate for site-specific normal values of adequate resolution.

          • The difference between distal and proximal thresholds increase drastically with age.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Quantitative thermal testing (QTT) is a psychophysical assessment method of small nerve fibers that relies on reference material to assess function. Normal limits for within-subject comparisons of thermal thresholds are scarce, and their association with age, height and sex is not fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to investigate the normal limits for distal-proximal– and contralateral homologous comparisons of thermal thresholds with QTT, and their association with age, sex or height.

          Methods

          Fifty healthy volunteers ages 20–79 participated in the experiment. Cold detection thresholds (CDT), warm detection thresholds (WDT), heat pain thresholds (HPT), and cold pain thresholds (CPT) were measured bilaterally at the thenar eminence, anterior thigh, distal medial leg and foot dorsum. Sample normal limits were calculated as (mean) ± 2 SD.

          Results

          Forty-eight subjects were included in the analysis. CPT was excluded from all analyses due to a large floor-effect. Sample normal limits for side-differences ranged from 1.8 to 7.2 °C for CDT, 2.4–6.8 °C for WDT and 3.2–4.0 °C for HPT, depending on anatomical site. For distal-proximal comparisons, sample normal limits ranged from 4.0 to 8.7 °C for CDT, 6.0–14.0 °C for WDT and 4.2–9.0 °C for HPT, depending on the pairs compared. Age was associated with side-differences for CDT in the thenar eminences (p < 0.001) and distal medial legs (p < 0.002), and with 11 of 18 distal-proximal comparisons (p < 0.01).

          Conclusions

          The normal limits for distal-proximal- and contralateral homologous thermal thresholds were wide, and thus of limited use in a clinical setting, although the reported values may be somewhat inflated by low sample-size and consequent age-pooling. Age, but not sex or height, was associated with contralateral differences in CDT in the thenar eminences and distal medial legs, and with most distal-proximal differences.

          Significance

          Due to wide normal limits, we advise caution when utilizing relative comparisons of thermal thresholds for diagnostic purposes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): standardized protocol and reference values.

          The nationwide multicenter trials of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) aim to characterize the somatosensory phenotype of patients with neuropathic pain. For this purpose, we have implemented a standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol giving a complete profile for one region within 30 min. To judge plus or minus signs in patients we have now established age- and gender-matched absolute and relative QST reference values from 180 healthy subjects, assessed bilaterally over face, hand and foot. We determined thermal detection and pain thresholds including a test for paradoxical heat sensations, mechanical detection thresholds to von Frey filaments and a 64 Hz tuning fork, mechanical pain thresholds to pinprick stimuli and blunt pressure, stimulus/response-functions for pinprick and dynamic mechanical allodynia, and pain summation (wind-up ratio). QST parameters were region specific and age dependent. Pain thresholds were significantly lower in women than men. Detection thresholds were generally independent of gender. Reference data were normalized to the specific group means and variances (region, age, gender) by calculating z-scores. Due to confidence limits close to the respective limits of the possible data range, heat hypoalgesia, cold hypoalgesia, and mechanical hyperesthesia can hardly be diagnosed. Nevertheless, these parameters can be used for group comparisons. Sensitivity is enhanced by side-to-side comparisons by a factor ranging from 1.1 to 2.5. Relative comparisons across body regions do not offer advantages over absolute reference values. Application of this standardized QST protocol in patients and human surrogate models will allow to infer underlying mechanisms from somatosensory phenotypes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials.

            We have compiled a comprehensive QST protocol as part of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) using well established tests for nearly all aspects of somatosensation. This protocol encompasses thermal as well as mechanical testing procedures. Our rationale was to test for patterns of sensory loss (small and large nerve fiber functions) or gain (hyperalgesia, allodynia, hyperpathia), and to assess both cutaneous and deep pain sensitivity. The practicality of the QST protocol was tested in 18 healthy subjects, 21-58 years, half of them female. All subjects were tested bilaterally over face, hand and foot. We determined thermal detection and pain thresholds including a test for the presence of paradoxical heat sensations, mechanical detection thresholds to von Frey filaments and a 64-Hz tuning fork, mechanical pain thresholds to pinprick stimuli and blunt pressure, stimulus-response-functions for pinprick and dynamic mechanical allodynia (pain to light touch), and pain summation (wind-up ratio) using repetitive pinprick stimulation. The full protocol took 27+/-2.3 min per test area. The majority of QST parameters were normally distributed only after logarithmic transformation (secondary normalization) except for the frequency of paradoxical heat sensations, cold and heat pain thresholds, and for vibration detection thresholds. Thresholds were usually lowest over face, followed by hand, and then foot. Only thermal pain thresholds, wind-up ratio and vibration detection thresholds were not significantly dependent on the body region. There was no significant right-to-left difference for any of the QST parameters; left-to-right correlation coefficients ranged between 0.78 and 0.97, thus explaining between 61% and 94% of the variance. This study has shown that a complete somatosensory profile of one affected area and one unaffected control area, which will be necessary to characterize patients with a variety of diseases, can be obtained within 1 h. Case examples of selected patients illustrate the value of z-transformed QST data for an easy survey of individual symptom profiles.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 patients with different neuropathic pain syndromes.

              Neuropathic pain is accompanied by both positive and negative sensory signs. To explore the spectrum of sensory abnormalities, 1236 patients with a clinical diagnosis of neuropathic pain were assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST) following the protocol of DFNS (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain), using both thermal and mechanical nociceptive as well as non-nociceptive stimuli. Data distributions showed a systematic shift to hyperalgesia for nociceptive, and to hypoesthesia for non-nociceptive parameters. Across all parameters, 92% of the patients presented at least one abnormality. Thermosensory or mechanical hypoesthesia (up to 41%) was more frequent than hypoalgesia (up to 18% for mechanical stimuli). Mechanical hyperalgesias occurred more often (blunt pressure: 36%, pinprick: 29%) than thermal hyperalgesias (cold: 19%, heat: 24%), dynamic mechanical allodynia (20%), paradoxical heat sensations (18%) or enhanced wind-up (13%). Hyperesthesia was less than 5%. Every single sensory abnormality occurred in each neurological syndrome, but with different frequencies: thermal and mechanical hyperalgesias were most frequent in complex regional pain syndrome and peripheral nerve injury, allodynia in postherpetic neuralgia. In postherpetic neuralgia and in central pain, subgroups showed either mechanical hyperalgesia or mechanical hypoalgesia. The most frequent combinations of gain and loss were mixed thermal/mechanical loss without hyperalgesia (central pain and polyneuropathy), mixed loss with mechanical hyperalgesia in peripheral neuropathies, mechanical hyperalgesia without any loss in trigeminal neuralgia. Thus, somatosensory profiles with different combinations of loss and gain are shared across the major neuropathic pain syndromes. The characterization of underlying mechanisms will be needed to make a mechanism-based classification feasible. Copyright (c) 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Clin Neurophysiol Pract
                Clin Neurophysiol Pract
                Clinical Neurophysiology Practice
                Elsevier
                2467-981X
                04 February 2021
                2021
                04 February 2021
                : 6
                : 63-71
                Affiliations
                [a ]Research and Communication Unit for Musculoskeletal Health (FORMI), Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                [b ]Department of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                [c ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
                [d ]Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Research and Communication Unit for Musculoskeletal Health (FORMI), Oslo University Hospital, Pb. 4956 Nydalen, 0424 Oslo, Norway. anoeys@ 123456ous-hf.no
                Article
                S2467-981X(21)00003-2
                10.1016/j.cnp.2021.01.002
                7905396
                15f4c7c2-ab83-4b15-9a90-ada79182549b
                © 2021 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 26 June 2020
                : 23 November 2020
                : 4 January 2021
                Categories
                Research Paper

                quantitative thermal testing,thermal thresholds,thermal testing,thermal perception,normative data,reference values

                Comments

                Comment on this article