Clinical sensory tests in professional practice: a web-based survey on awareness and challenges among Italian...

Clinical sensory testing comprises pragmatic, relatively low-cost bedside approaches for appraising somatosensory function. However, clinicians' perceptions of these approaches and the barriers they associate with their use in Italy are poorly characterized.

To describe self-reported perceptions of clinical sensory testing, preferred approaches to the assessment of different sensory modalities, and perceived barriers among Italian physicians and physiotherapists.

A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted disseminating nationally through non-probability recruitment between January and August 2025. Eligible respondents self-identified as licensed physicians or physiotherapists practicing in Italy and reported at least partial involvement in assessment of musculoskeletal or neuromuscular conditions. Questionnaire comprised 18 mandatory closed-ended items covering professional characteristics, perceived barriers, conceptual/methodological perceptions, preferred sensory-assessment options, and perceived clinical applicability. Results were summarized separately by profession using frequencies and percentages.

Four hundred and ninety-six complete questionnaires were analyzed (105 physicians, 391 physiotherapists). Time constraints were the most frequently selected barrier among physicians (90/105, 85.7%) and physiotherapists (302/391, 77.2%). A low-cost screening approach for somatosensory alterations was selected as the preferred CST definition by 69 physicians (65.7%) and 280 physiotherapists (71.6%). Small-fiber assessment was rated as "quite important" by 67 physicians (63.8%) and 214 physiotherapists (54.7%). For tactile, thermal, nociceptive, and vibratory assessment, respondents most often selected cotton swabs, warm/cold coins, toothpicks, and tuning forks, respectively, although the response distributions differed between the two samples.

Respondents generally perceived clinical sensory testing as a low-cost and potentially useful approach, and time was the most frequently selected barrier. The findings describe perceptions and preferred response options rather than objective knowledge, verified professional competence, or actual CST use. They should not be interpreted as nationally representative estimates. Future studies should evaluate the validity, reliability, feasibility, and implementation of brief standardized CST approaches using more representative recruitment and direct measures of clinical behavior.