Cited by 416Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentReliability and Agreement in MeasurementPain Mechanisms and Treatments

Reliability of Clinical Pressure-Pain Algometric Measurements Obtained on Consecutive Days

Nussbaum, Ethne L, Downes, Laurie·1998·Physical Therapy

Abstract

Background and purpose Algometers have been used to measure muscle and other soft tissue tenderness. The purpose of this study was to investigate (1) "normal" pressure-pain threshold (PPT) in the biceps brachii muscle, (2) the reliability of repeated measurements of PPT in subjects without pain over 3 consecutive days, (3) the reliability of measurements of PPT between examiners, and (4) the number of measurements required to obtain a best estimate of PPT. Subjects Thirty-five subjects participated in the study. Methods Pain-pressure threshold of the biceps brachii muscle was measured using a Fischer algometer. Three test trials were done on each subject on each of 3 days by each of two examiners. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and graphical methods were used to analyze the results. Results The ICCs revealed almost perfect reliability for measurements of PPT within and across 3 days and substantial reliability between examiners. The best estimate of PPT was obtained using the mean of the second and third trials each day. Graphical methods demonstrated that agreement between examiners was greatest at low mean pain thresholds. There was no effect for order of examiner. Conclusion and discussion The PPT is a reliable measure, and repeated algometry does not change pain threshold in healthy muscle over 3 consecutive days. The PPT can be used to evaluate the development and decline of experimentally induced muscle tenderness. Reliability is enhanced when all measuremen…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ptj/78.2.160

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nussbaum, E. L., & Downes, L.
Affiliations
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Venue
Physical Therapy
Published
1998-02-01
Volume
78
Issue
2
Pages
160-169
ISSN
  • 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-6724
OpenAlex
W2117749278
Cited by
416
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 19
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
pressure pain threshold, algometry, biceps brachii, muscle tenderness, inter-examiner reliability, test-retest reliability, measurement agreement, number of measurements
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Pressure, Reproducibility of Results, Pain Threshold, Muscle, Skeletal

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