Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 30, 2025
A Quantitative Sensory Testing Paradigm to Obtain Measures of Pain Processing in Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Surgery
Published on: January 18, 2018
Concurrent validity of dynamic bedside quantitative sensory testing paradigms in breast cancer survivors with
Vincent Haenen1,2,3, Mira Meeus1,3, Nele Devoogdt2,4,5
1Research Group MOVANT, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy (REVAKI), University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Background:
Studies on the concurrent validity of clinically applicable testing protocols for conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) in breast cancer survivors (BCS) with persistent pain are lacking.
Objectives:
This study investigated the concurrent validity of two bedside protocols for CPM and TSP in comparison to a respective reference protocol. The participants' preferences for bedside CPM and TSP protocols were assessed.
Methods:
Thirty BCS experiencing persistent pain were included in this study. Each participant underwent a reference test along with two bedside alternatives for assessing both TSP and CPM. For CPM, a cold pressor test (CPT) and blood pressure cuff (BPC) were used as conditioning stimulus. The test stimulus was elicited in parallel by pressure pain threshold after 45 and 90 s of conditioning at the lower limb. The CPM reference test consisted of parallel heat stimuli at the forearms using a two-thermode system. TSP was elicited using a von Frey monofilament (256 mN) and an algometer (98 kPa) at the affected site and opposite lower limb. The TSP reference test consisted of heat stimuli at the affected site and opposite lower limb. Participants' testing preference was examined using a purpose-designed questionnaire. Spearman's rank test examined the correlation between protocols.
Results:
The two bedside CPM protocols were strongly correlated (r = 0.787-0.939, p < 0.005). A strong correlation was found between the BPC protocol and reference test using the relative effect magnitude (r = 0.541-0.555, p < 0.005). The bedside TSP protocols were moderately correlated with each other only at the lower limb using absolute change scores (r = 0.455, p = 0.012). No significant correlation was found between the bedside and reference TSP protocols.
Conclusion:
The significantly moderate to very strong correlations between the bedside protocols validate their interchangeability. Researchers and clinicians should be able to choose which bedside protocol they utilize; however, participants favored the use of a BPC and algometer for the evaluation of CPM and TSP, respectively.
