Better palpation of pain: reliability and validity of a new pressure pain protocol in TMD.
Better palpation of pain: reliability and validity of a new pressure pain protocol in TMD.
复制标题
更好的疼痛触诊：TMD 中新压痛方案的可靠性和有效性。
DOI：
10.1080/08869634.2000.11746114
复制
发表时间：
2000
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Meyers,G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brown,FF;Robinson,ME;Riley3rd,JL;Gremillion,HA;McSolay,J;Meyers,G
本研究的目的是采用离子电渗利多卡因的双盲安慰剂对照设计来评估使用压力计的幅度匹配程序的重测可靠性和有效性。在评估颞下颌疾病 (TMD) 疼痛的文献研究中，发现压力痛觉计是测量压力疼痛阈值的可靠方法，也是实验室治疗反应的灵敏测量方法。然而，之前对该装置的研究并未采用更复杂的心理物理学。本研究采用幅度匹配心理物理方案来获得多维疼痛报告。两次相隔 3-8 天的重测信度被发现对于无法辨别能力来说是中等的 (<.01)，但对于反应偏倚来说是较差的 (r =.44)。有效性研究在双盲安慰剂和无治疗对照设计中使用离子电渗疗法作为麻醉剂。尽管假设麻醉组的受试者与对照组相比，其辨别能力会降低，但三组之间在这项措施上没有发现差异。然而，发现了反应偏差的差异，安慰剂对照组和未治疗对照组都与实验组不同，但彼此没有差异。讨论了可能的解释和这些发现的含义。
The purpose of this research was to employ a double-blind placebo control design of ion-tophoretically administered lidocaine to assess the test-retest reliability and validity of a magnitude matching procedure using a pressure algometer. In studies in the literature on assessment of pain in temporomandibular disorders (TMD), the pressure algometer has been found to be a reliable means of measuring pressure-pain threshold and a sensitive measure of treatment-response in the laboratory. However, previous research with this apparatus has not employed more sophisticated psychophysics. This study employs a magnitude matching psychophysical protocol to obtain a multidimensional pain report. Test-retest reliability over two occasions, 3–8 days apart, was found to be moderate for discrim-inability (<.01) but poor for response bias (r =.44). The validity study used iontophoresis as an anesthetic in a double-blind placebo and no-treatment control design. Although it was hypothesized that subjects in the anesthesia group would demonstrate reduced discriminability as compared with the control groups, no differences were found among the three groups on this measure. However, differences in response bias were found, with both the placebo control and no-treatment control groups differing from the experimental group but not from each other. Possible explanations and the implications of these findings are discussed.