The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 109 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Quantitative Sensory Testing Move Us Closer to Mechanism-Based Pain Management?
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: This review summarizes the scientific literature relating to the use of quantitative sensory testing (QST) for mechanism-based pain management. DESIGN: A literature search was undertaken using PubMed and search terms including quantitative sensory testing, pain, chronic pain, response to treatment, outcome measure. SETTINGS AND PATIENTS: Studies including QST in healthy individuals and those with painful disorders were reviewed. MEASURES: Publications reported on QST methodological issues including associations among measures and reliability. We also included publications on the use of QST measures in case-control studies, their associations with biopsychosocial mechanisms, QST measures predicting clinical pain, as well as predicting and reflecting treatment responses. RESULTS: Although evidence suggests that QST may be useful in a mechanism-based classification of pain, there are gaps in our current understanding that need to be addressed including making QST more applicable in clinical settings. There is a need for developing shorter QST protocols that are clinically predictive of various pain subtypes and treatment responses without requiring expensive equipment. Future studies are needed, examining the clinical predictive value of QST including sensitivity and specificity for pain classification or outcome prediction. These findings could enable third-party payers' reimbursement, which would facilitate clinical implementation of QST. CONCLUSIONS: With some developments, QST could become a cost-effective and clinically useful component of pain assessment and diagnosis, which can further our progress toward the goal of mechanism-based personalized pain management.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Rolke, R., Baron, R., Maier, C., Tölle, T. R., Treede, D. R., Beyer, A., Binder, A., Birbaumer, N., Birklein, F., Bötefür, I. C., et al. (2006) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.01.041 · Cited by 2,609
Woolf, C. J., & Thompson, S. W. N. (1991) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(91)90100-c · Cited by 1,963
Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials
Rolke, R., Magerl, W., Campbell, K. A., Schalber, C., Caspari, S., Birklein, F., & Treede, R. ‐. (2006) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.02.003 · Cited by 1,520
COMT val 158 met Genotype Affects µ-Opioid Neurotransmitter Responses to a Pain Stressor
Zubieta, J.-K., Heitzeg, M. M., Smith, Y. R., Bueller, J. A., Xu, K., Xu, Y., Koeppe, R. A., Stohler, C. S., & Goldman, D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1078546 · Cited by 1,125
Maier, C., Baron, R., Tölle, T. R., Binder, A., Birbaumer, N., Birklein, F., Gierthmühlen, J., Flor, H., Geber, C., Huge, V., et al. (2010) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.05.002 · Cited by 1,021
Pain and the brain: specificity and plasticity of the brain in clinical chronic pain
Apkarian, V. A., Hashmi, J. A., & Baliki, M. N. (2011) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.010 · Cited by 782
Mechanisms of Disease: neuropathic pain—a clinical perspective
Baron, R. (2006) · Nature Clinical Practice Neurology · doi:10.1038/ncpneuro0113 · Cited by 752
Prediction of chronic post-operative pain: Pre-operative DNIC testing identifies patients at risk
Yarnitsky, D., Crispel, Y., Eisenberg, E., Granovsky, Y., Ben-Nun, A., Sprecher, E., Best, L.-A., & Granot, M. (2008) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.10.033 · Cited by 750
Neural correlates of interindividual differences in the subjective experience of pain
Coghill, R. C., McHaffie, J. G., & Yen, Y.-F. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1430684100 · Cited by 601
Price, D. D., Hu, J. W., Dubner, R., & Gracely, R. H. (1977) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(77)90035-5 · Cited by 589
Cited by
Methods Used to Evaluate Pain Behaviors in Rodents
Deuis, J. R., Dvorakova, L. S., & Vetter, I. (2017) · Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnmol.2017.00284 · Cited by 1,249
Individual differences in pain: understanding the mosaic that makes pain personal
Fillingim, R. B. (2017) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000775 · Cited by 658
Self-citationUnraveling the mechanisms of manual therapy: modeling an approach
Bialosky, J. E., Beneciuk, J. M., Bishop, M. D., Coronado, R. A., Penza, C. W., Simon, C. B., & George, S. Z. (2018) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7476 · Cited by 482
Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations
Edwards, R. R., Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Angst, M. S., Dionne, R., Freeman, R., Hansson, P., Haroutounian, S., Arendt-Nielsen, L., Attal, N., et al. (2016) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000602 · Cited by 403
Self-citationAssessment of Chronic Pain: Domains, Methods, and Mechanisms
Fillingim, R. B., Loeser, J. D., Baron, R., & Edwards, R. R. (2016) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2015.08.010 · Cited by 409
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cruz-Almeida, Y., & Fillingim, R. B.
- Venue
- Pain Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-72
- ISSN
- 1526-2375 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-4637
- OpenAlex
- W1743359573
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 109
- FWCI
- 9.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Can Quantitative Sensory Testing Move Us Closer to Mechanism-Based Pain Management? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/pme.12230
- The paper
- Cruz-Almeida, Y., & Fillingim, R. B. (2014). Can Quantitative Sensory Testing Move Us Closer to Mechanism-Based Pain Management? Pain Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/pme.12230
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.
