IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0151972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative and Qualitative Responses to Topical Cold in Healthy Caucasians Show Variance between Individuals but High Test-Retest Reliability

Author

Listed:
  • Penny Moss
  • Jasmine Whitnell
  • Anthony Wright

Abstract

Increased sensitivity to cold may be a predictor of persistent pain, but cold pain threshold is often viewed as unreliable. This study aimed to determine the within-subject reliability and between-subject variance of cold response, measured comprehensively as cold pain threshold plus pain intensity and sensation quality at threshold. A test-retest design was used over three sessions, one day apart. Response to cold was assessed at four sites (thenar eminence, volar forearm, tibialis anterior, plantar foot). Cold pain threshold was measured using a Medoc thermode and standard method of limits. Intensity of pain at threshold was rated using a 10cm visual analogue scale. Quality of sensation at threshold was quantified with indices calculated from subjects' selection of descriptors from a standard McGill Pain Questionnaire. Within-subject reliability for each measure was calculated with intra-class correlation coefficients and between-subject variance was evaluated as group coefficient of variation percentage (CV%). Gender and site comparisons were also made. Forty-five healthy adults participated: 20 male, 25 female; mean age 29 (range 18–56) years. All measures at all four test sites showed high within-subject reliability: cold pain thresholds r = 0.92–0.95; pain rating r = 0.93–0.97; McGill pain quality indices r = 0.87–0.85. In contrast, all measures showed wide between-subject variance (CV% between 51.4% and 92.5%). Upper limb sites were consistently more sensitive than lower limb sites, but equally reliable. Females showed elevated cold pain thresholds, although similar pain intensity and quality to males. Females were also more reliable and showed lower variance for all measures. Thus, although there was clear population variation, response to cold for healthy individuals was found to be highly reliable, whether measured as pain threshold, pain intensity or sensation quality. A comprehensive approach to cold response testing therefore may add validity and improve acceptance of this potentially important pain measure.

Suggested Citation

  • Penny Moss & Jasmine Whitnell & Anthony Wright, 2016. "Quantitative and Qualitative Responses to Topical Cold in Healthy Caucasians Show Variance between Individuals but High Test-Retest Reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151972
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151972
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151972&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0151972?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.