Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 514

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative sensory testing: Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Open access
Shy, M.E., Frohman, E.M., So, Y.T., Arezzo, J.C., Cornblath, D.R., Giuliani, M.J., Kincaid, J.C., Ochoa, J.L., Parry, G.J., Weimer, L.H.·2003·Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This assessment evaluates the clinical utility, efficacy, and safety of quantitative sensory testing (QST). METHODS: By searching MEDLINE, Current Contents, and their personal files, the authors identified 350 articles. Selected articles utilized computer operated threshold systems, manually operated threshold systems, and electrical threshold devices. The authors evaluated the use of normal values and the degree of reproducibility between the same and different systems. Articles were rated using a standard classification of evidence scheme. RESULTS: Because of differences between systems, normal values from one system cannot be transposed to others. Reproducibility of results was also an important concern, and there is no consensus on how it should be defined. The authors identified no adequately powered class I studies demonstrating the effectiveness of QST in evaluating any particular disorder. A number of class II and III studies demonstrated that QST is probably or possibly useful in identifying small or large fiber sensory abnormalities in patients with diabetic neuropathy, small fiber neuropathies, uremic neuropathies, and demyelinating neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: QST is a potentially useful tool for measuring sensory impairment for clinical and research studies. However, QST results should not be the sole criteria used to diagnose pathology. Because malingering and other nonorganic factors can influence the test results, QST is not currently useful for the purpose of resolving medicolegal matters. Well-designed studies comparing different QST devices and methodologies are needed and should include patients with abnormalities detected solely by QST.

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 · 10.1212/01.wnl.0000058546.16985.11

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 514

Metadata

Authors
Shy, M. E., Frohman, E. M., So, Y. T., Arezzo, J. C., Cornblath, D. R., Giuliani, M. J., Kincaid, J. C., Ochoa, J. L., Parry, G. J., & Weimer, L. H.
Venue
Neurology
Published
2003-03-25
Volume
60
Issue
6
Pages
898-904
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2001168381
Cited by
514
References
1
FWCI
11.94
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: Quantitative sensory testing: Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/01.wnl.0000058546.16985.11
The paper
Shy, M. E., Frohman, E. M., So, Y. T., Arezzo, J. C., Cornblath, D. R., Giuliani, M. J., Kincaid, J. C., Ochoa, J. L., Parry, G. J., & Weimer, L. H. (2003). Quantitative sensory testing: Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000058546.16985.11

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.