0.5) correlation coefficient according to Cohen's conventions. We tested 157 in-patients with different pain types. A calibrated clothes peg was applied for 10 seconds and patients rated the pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. Pressure pain detection threshold (PPdt) and pressure pain tolerance threshold (PPtt) were measured with a standard electronic algometer. Both methods were performed on both middle fingers and ear lobes. In a subgroup of 47 patients repeatability (test-retest reliability) was calculated. Clothes peg values correlated with PPdt values for finger testing with r = -0.54 and for earlobe testing with r = -0.55 (all p-values < 0.001). Clothes peg values also correlated with PPtt values for finger testing with r = -0.55 (p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability (repeatability) showed equally stable results for clothes peg algometry and the electronic algometer (all r-values > 0.89, all p-values < 0.001). Information on pain sensitivity provided by a calibrated clothes peg and an established algometer correlate at a clinically meaningful level."/> 0.5) correlation coefficient according to Cohen's conventions. We tested 157 in-patients with different pain types. A calibrated clothes peg was applied for 10 seconds and patients rated the pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. Pressure pain detection threshold (PPdt) and pressure pain tolerance threshold (PPtt) were measured with a standard electronic algometer. Both methods were performed on both middle fingers and ear lobes. In a subgroup of 47 patients repeatability (test-retest reliability) was calculated. Clothes peg values correlated with PPdt values for finger testing with r = -0.54 and for earlobe testing with r = -0.55 (all p-values < 0.001). Clothes peg values also correlated with PPtt values for finger testing with r = -0.55 (p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability (repeatability) showed equally stable results for clothes peg algometry and the electronic algometer (all r-values > 0.89, all p-values < 0.001). Information on pain sensitivity provided by a calibrated clothes peg and an established algometer correlate at a clinically meaningful level."/>
Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Peer Review Reports for: Algometry with a clothes peg compared to an electronic pressure algometer: a randomized cross-sectional study in pain patients

Back to article

Pre-publication versions of this article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
3 Feb 2011 Submitted Original manuscript
7 Apr 2011 Author responded Author comments - Niklaus Egloff
Resubmission - Version 2
7 Apr 2011 Submitted Manuscript version 2
7 Apr 2011 Author responded Author comments - Niklaus Egloff
Resubmission - Version 3
7 Apr 2011 Submitted Manuscript version 3
28 Apr 2011 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Douglas Curran-Everett
7 Jun 2011 Author responded Author comments - Niklaus Egloff
Resubmission - Version 4
7 Jun 2011 Submitted Manuscript version 4
22 Jul 2011 Author responded Author comments - Niklaus Egloff
Resubmission - Version 5
22 Jul 2011 Submitted Manuscript version 5
Publishing
25 Jul 2011 Editorially accepted
25 Jul 2011 Article published 10.1186/1471-2474-12-174

How does Open Peer Review work?

Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Advertisement