Key result
Fast autoalgometry stimulation correlates with a higher minimal pressure pain threshold versus slow rates.
Why the study?
Does autoalgometry accurately evaluate pressure pain threshold in relation to stimulation rate, gender, and site of stimulation in healthy volunteers?
Population
50 healthy volunteers
Comparison
Autoalgometry with fast or slow rate of… vs Fast vs slow rate of stimulation
Design
Other
Follow-up
two days
Authors
Loading...
Stimulation rate affects autoalgometry thresholds in healthy volunteers; leaves open its reliability for clinical or research use.
Cross-Sectional (n=50)
No
Does autoalgometry accurately evaluate pressure pain threshold in relation to stimulation rate, gender, and site of stimulation in healthy volunteers?
Effect estimate: r = 0.53
p-value: p=<0.01
Autoalgometry demonstrates a positive correlation between pressure increase rate and pressure threshold, suggesting its utility as an objective measure for clinical and research use.
Lorusso et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (n=50). Fast rate of stimulation (autoalgometry) vs. Slow rate of stimulation was evaluated on Correlation between test speed and algometric threshold in minimal tests (r = 0.53, p=<0.01). A fast rate of stimulation during autoalgometry was positively correlated with a higher minimal pressure pain threshold (r = 0.53, p < 0.01) compared to a slow rate.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: