Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,520

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials

Rolke, R., Magerl, W., Campbell, K. Andrews, Schalber, C., Caspari, S., Birklein, F., Treede, R.‐D.·2006·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.02.003

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,520

Metadata

Authors
Rolke, R., Magerl, W., Campbell, K. A., Schalber, C., Caspari, S., Birklein, F., & Treede, R. ‐.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
77-77
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2108197576
Cited by
1,520
References
2
FWCI
12.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.02.003
The paper
Rolke, R., Magerl, W., Campbell, K. A., Schalber, C., Caspari, S., Birklein, F., & Treede, R. ‐. (2006). Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials. European Journal of Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.02.003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.