Next Article in Journal
Effects of Tai Chi and Walking Exercise on Emotional Face Recognition in Elderly People: An ERP Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Online Questionnaire with Fibromyalgia Patients Reveals Correlations among Type of Pain, Psychological Alterations, and Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Therapies
Previous Article in Journal
Characteristics of Biomechanical and Physical Function According to Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Acetabular Impingement Syndrome in Young Adults
Previous Article in Special Issue
Strengths and Weaknesses of Cancer Pain Management in Italy: Findings from a Nationwide SIAARTI Survey
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain

1
Department of Orthopaedics Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi University, Yamaguchi 755-8505, Japan
2
Pain Management Research Institute, Yamaguchi University Hospital, Yamaguchi 755-8505, Japan
3
Department of Rehabilitation, Yamaguchi University Hospital, Yamaguchi 755-8505, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(8), 1485; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10081485
Submission received: 26 June 2022 / Revised: 2 August 2022 / Accepted: 3 August 2022 / Published: 7 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Problems for Managing Chronic Pain)

Abstract

:
In recent years, several published articles have shown that quantitative sensory testing (QST) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) are useful in the analysis of neck/shoulder and low back pain. A valid reference for normal PPT values might be helpful for the clinical diagnosis of abnormal tenderness or muscle pain. However, there have been no reliable references for PPT values of neck/shoulder and back pain because the data vary depending on the devices used, the measurement units, and the area examined. In this article, we review previously published PPT articles on neck/shoulder and low back pain, discuss the measurement properties of PPT, and summarize the current data on PPT values in patients with chronic pain and healthy volunteers. We also reveal previous issues related to PPT evaluation and discuss the future of PPT assessment for widespread use in general clinics. We outline QST and PPT measurements and what kinds of perceptions can be quantified with the PPT. Ninety-seven articles were selected in the present review, in which we focused on the normative values and abnormal values in volunteers/patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. We conducted our search of articles using PubMed and Medline, a medical database. We used a combination of “Pressure pain threshold” and “Neck shoulder pain” or “Back pain” as search terms and searched articles from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2022. From the data extracted, we revealed the PPT values in healthy control subjects and patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. This database could serve as a benchmark for future research with pressure algometers for the wide use of PPT assessment in clinics.

1. Introduction

Musculoskeletal disease is a worldwide problem for which healthcare assistance is frequently sought. Low back pain (LBP) and neck/shoulder pain are the most common musculoskeletal conditions that evolve into chronic problems [1,2]. Musculoskeletal pathology may initiate chronic pain, but the pain is often also modulated by sensory inputs from the peripheral and central nervous systems [3]. Central sensitization is involved in the chronification of pain, which manifests as hypersensitivity to pain and is spread beyond the areas immediately affected by musculoskeletal pathology [4]. It continues to be challenging to detect and measure hypersensitivity in clinical practice, and no consensus has been reached on which tools are best for assessing musculoskeletal pain [2].
Quantitative sensory testing (QST) combines simple tools that can assess the ability to perceive touch, vibration, proprioception, and sensitivity to pinpricks or blunt pressure and to cold or heat stimuli [2]. QST and the assessment of the pressure pain threshold (PPT) have become commonplace in clinical neurophysiology units [5,6,7,8]. QST/PPT uses psychophysical tests defined as stimuli with predetermined physical properties based on specific measurement protocols for the analysis of somatosensory aberrations. QST/PPT measures sensory stimuli and can be used to assess somatosensory system functions, the measurement of altered peripheral and/or central pain sensitivity, and descending pain modulation [8].
PPT is the QST parameter most frequently used to investigate local and widespread hyperalgesia. PPT reflects sensitivity to pain and can be measured by either electronic or mechanical pressure algometry. In this test, subjects report when gradually applied pressure changes from a feeling of pressure to that of pressure combined with pain [8]. The advantages of PPT include its simplicity and rapid measurement time compared to other QST protocols in which measurement time is longer and requires more effort [5,9,10].
Several articles published over recent years have shown the usefulness of PPT in analyzing neck/shoulder and back pain [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Evidence from these studies indicates that PPT would appear to be a useful tool for analyzing the pathogenesis, classification, differential diagnosis, and prognosis of neck/shoulder and back pain [11]. However, the assessment of neck/shoulder and back pain with PPT has one main problem. Standardized normative values for neck/shoulder and back pain conditions are lacking and need to be developed. Although valid reference values indicative of a normal PPT would aid in the clinical diagnosis of muscle pain or abnormal tenderness, no such reliable values currently exist for neck/shoulder and back pain [17].
Therefore, the aims of the present article are to review previously published articles on PPT for neck/shoulder pain and LBP, to discuss measurement properties of PPT, and to review and summarize the present data on PPT values in patients with chronic neck/shoulder and LBP and healthy volunteers, based on our search of the current knowledge base on PPT. We also reveal previous issues related to the PPT evaluation of patients with chronic pain and discuss the future of PPT for widespread use in general clinics.

2. Quantitative Sensory Testing

QST collectively refers to a group of procedures that assess the perceptual response to systematically applied and quantitative sensory stimuli to characterize somatosensory function or dysfunction [8,18]. QST involves procedures that test perception, pain threshold, and pain tolerance thresholds for different stimuli based on the application of standardized pressure, vibration, thermal, or electrical impulses. QST measures the response to sensory stimuli and can be used to assess somatosensory system function, the measurement of altered peripheral and/or central pain sensitivity, and descending pain modulation [8,19].
By selecting various QST modalities, different fibers can be tested. The function of Aδ fibers is represented by the cold detection threshold, that of C fibers by the heat detection threshold, that of nociceptive C fibers mainly by the heat pain threshold, and that of Aβ fibers by mechanical detection and vibration [11,18,20]. The thermal, mechanical, and electrical tests commonly applied in QST are listed in Table 1 [20,21,22].

3. Pressure Pain Threshold

Among the QST parameters, PPT is the most frequently assessed. PPT is determined by applying a mechanical stimulus to determine the moment that the stimulus-induced sensation of pressure first changes to that of pain [23]. This allows the quantification of the PPTs of skin and muscle. An algometer is often used to apply pressure to sites both close and far from the location of the subject’s pain. Factors such as sex, the investigator, and the apparatus used may affect the measurement of PPT by pressure algometry. The reliability of PPT based on raters or measurement frequencies is reported to be relatively high [23,24].

3.1. Perceptions of Peripheral and Central Sensitization Can Be Quantified by PPT

PPT can be used to evaluate peripheral and central sensitization. Tenderness experienced with blunt pressure may be caused by the peripheral sensitization of primary afferents or central sensitization [25]. Because PPT preferentially activates deep afferents, it is a good clinical device for measuring peripheral sensitization. Hyperalgesia of the affected area to blunt mechanical stimuli is thought to reflect the peripheral sensitization of Aδ and C fibers. Unlike cutaneous nociceptors, which are particularly sensitive to thermal stimuli, nociceptors in deep somatic tissue, such as joints and muscles, exhibit a pronounced sensitivity to mechanical stimuli [25,26].
PPT can also assess central sensitization, which can cause mechanical receptive fields to expand. Although this might account for some local spreading of tenderness, the alteration of pathways descending from the brainstem is more likely to result in widespread or generalized tenderness. A widespread lowering of PPT may reflect the dysfunction of the endogenous pain inhibitory mechanism [25,26,27].

3.2. PPT Analysis in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain

PPT is also effective in disorders involving musculoskeletal pain. Pressure stimuli generated by an algometer can target muscles or fascia, thus indicating that the application of such stimuli would be suitable for patients with muscle or joint pain [28]. The reliability of algometer use in patients with musculoskeletal pain has been established. In addition, in a reliability study using several PPTs, algometers were reported to have the least variability and highest reliability in assessing musculoskeletal pain [26,28]. Distinguishing between alterations in peripheral and central pain processing in patients with musculoskeletal pain is important, as central sensitization is considered a potential influence in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. There are many reports on the use of PPT in patients with neck/shoulder, low back, and other musculoskeletal pain [28]. Furthermore, PPT might be valuable in predicting postoperative pain after surgery on musculoskeletal structures [2,6,9]. PPT can be used to evaluate the pathophysiology of peripheral and central sensitization in patients with neck/shoulder and LBP and is useful when analyzing the pathogenesis of chronic pain as well as its classification, differential diagnosis, and prediction [12].
They are meaningful evaluation techniques for patients with chronic pain because it is generally very difficult to objectively score how much pain the patients feel in the neck/shoulder and back area, including central sensitizations. PPT examination is one of the solutions to examining patients with chronic pain for digitalization [12]. However, no reviews of previous articles on PPT analysis for chronic neck/shoulder and LBP have been published, nor have standardized methods of assessing PPT for musculoskeletal pain been reported. Moreover, the results are different in the articles showing standardized, normative, and abnormal PPT values of neck/shoulder and LBP in volunteers/patients with and without chronic pain [12].
For these reasons, PPT is not a popular tool in the evaluation of patients with chronic pain even now in general clinics [11]. It is necessary to review all articles on PPT related to neck/shoulder and LBP in volunteers/patients with and without chronic pain in order to achieve the wide and general use of PPT examination. In addition, issues related to recent PPT analysis from the review of the published articles should be pointed out. In the next section, we discuss the previously published articles on PPT for neck/shoulder and LBP published from 2000 to 2022 (Table 2 and Table 3). We also reveal the normative and abnormal values for the neck, shoulder, and back, retrieved from the published articles, because these values would be the most important in helping clinicians to distinguish whether patients have abnormal pain. In addition, these data would be meaningful for clinical use in general clinics to help popularize PPT as an examination tool.

4. Systematic Review of PPT Values in Healthy Control Subjects and Patients with Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain

In this section, we review normal and abnormal PPT values in patients with neck/shoulder and LBP, PPT devices, and the area of PPT examination from the selected articles.

4.1. Methods of Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (https://prisma-statement.org/; accessed on 1 June 2022). Using the PubMed/MEDLINE database, we first identified relevant articles using the search terms “Pressure pain threshold” AND “Neck shoulder pain” OR “Back pain” published until 1 June 2022 from 1 January 2000. Based on this review of the article titles, we selected relevant titles related to our review. We excluded articles that were not written in the English language. These titles underwent an abstract review, after which unrelated titles were excluded. Additional relevant publications were identified and added after review of reference lists. The remaining articles underwent a full-text review. Articles without full text were excluded. Animal studies were also excluded.
The criteria for selection of the articles were: (1) PPT values as one of the main outcomes; (2) measurement site and method of assessment of PPT were described in detail; (3) the articles were written in English. For this review on musculoskeletal pain, we focused on neck/shoulder pain and back pain, for which PPT values are frequently reported in musculoskeletal pain.

4.2. Study Selection

We identified a total of 6523 articles through our database search. After title review and the removal of duplicates, 6275 articles were excluded, and 248 articles underwent abstract and full-text review. A total of 151 articles were excluded on full-text review. The reasons for the exclusion of studies were: (1) PPT value was not listed as one of the main outcomes; (2) The measurement site and method of assessment of PPT were not described in detail, and the articles were written in English; (3) There were no written in PPT values; (4) They were deemed unsuitable after a discussion. Ninety-seven studies met the criteria for review. The search flow diagram is displayed in Figure 1. Titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy were independently screened by two reviewers (H.S. and S.T.) to determine potentially relevant studies. Full texts of potentially relevant studies were retrieved and evaluated for eligibility by the same reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved via consensus; if consensus could not be reached, a third, independent reviewer (T.S.) resolved the dispute.
As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, 97 articles were selected in the present review, in which we focused on the normative values and abnormal values in volunteers/patients with neck/shoulder and LBP based on the values reported in the articles, because it was difficult to compare the effects of each treatment directly. The subjects ranged in age from 18 to 75 years old. The majority of the studies used pressure algometers manufactured by Somedic AB (Sweden) or Wagner Instruments (Greenwich, CT, USA).

4.3. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias Assessment

Two review authors (H.S. and S.T.) independently performed the risk of bias assessment, and a third review author (Y.I.) was involved in case of disagreement. The Cochrane Back Review Group “risk of bias” tool was used. All studies had at least one serious risk of bias, with a consequent overall serious risk of bias for those studies. Critical appraisal revealed a spread in methodological quality. Common areas of bias were the lack of use of accepted diagnostic criteria for neck/shoulder/back pain and the lack of reporting of the validity and reliability of the measurement device. Furthermore, all studies had high selection bias because no study reported randomly selecting or consecutively recruiting participants.

4.4. Neck/Shoulder Pain

Forty-nine studies, in which the PPT of the neck–shoulder area was measured in patients with neck/shoulder pain and/or healthy volunteers, are listed in Table 2 [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75]. The subjects of studies of healthy volunteers, workers, children, and young adults without pain were also reported in 10 articles, shown at the bottom of Table 2 [67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75]. These articles revealed the normative values of PPT in the neck–shoulder area. PPT was examined in the areas of the deltoid, trapezius, sternocleidomastoid, supraspinatus, and infraspinatus muscles, spinal processes, and C5–C6 zygapophyseal joints. Several devices and different units of measurement were used in the examination. The most common device used was a pressure algometer from Somedic AB, and the measurement unit was kPa. The normative PPT values obtained from the previous data ranged from 175 to 420 kPa at the neck–shoulder area, indicating variability in the data. In addition, several papers compared the data from healthy controls with those of the patients with chronic pain in the neck or shoulder. Nine articles showed the normative value, while data values in comparative tests ranged from 151 to 337 kPa at this area [33,34,35,40,41,47,48,49,53,55,56,57,58,59,65], again revealing variability in the data.
There were 39 studies that measured PPT in the neck–shoulder area of patients with neck/shoulder pain (Table 2) [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. Algometers made by Somedic AB (units in kPa) and Wagner Instruments (units in kg/cm2) were mainly used for PPT measurements, but more than 10 different devices were used in the articles. The areas of PPT examination were the deltoid, trapezius, levator scapulae, semispinalis capitis, sternocleidomastoid, supraspinatus, and infraspinatus muscles, spinal processes, suboccipital muscles, and C5–C6 zygapophyseal joints. The trapezius muscle and levator scapulae were the most commonly evaluated areas of PPT [33,34,41,53,55,56,57,64,66,70,73,74], but the analyzed areas differed widely in the articles. The abnormal values of PPT in the trapezius muscle of the patients with chronic neck or shoulder pain were reported to vary from 151 to 411 kPa and 1.35 to 4.14 kg/cm2 [33,34,41,53,55,56,57,64], with varying data depending on the device and units used. From this review of previously published articles evaluating neck–shoulder pain using algometers to measure PPT, we think that it is difficult to show the abnormal and cutoff values of patients/volunteers with chronic neck or shoulder pain because the devices, measurement units, and PPT data vary widely across the different papers. However, a difference score above 25–81 kPa between the patients with neck or shoulder pain and healthy control subjects was a meaningful difference for PPT measured by Somedic AB algometers (Table 2) [33,34,41,53,55,56,57,64].

4.5. Low Back Pain

Forty-eight studies that measured PPT in the low back area in patients with LBP and/or healthy volunteers are listed in Table 3. The subjects of the studies were patients with LBP, healthy volunteers, workers, and patients with myofascial pain syndrome [76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122]. These articles revealed the normative values of PPT in the lower back area. The areas examined were the back, lumbar region, 1–3 cm lateral of the spinous processes, paravertebral muscle, paraspinal muscle, dorsal longissimus, erector spinae muscle, suprainterspinous ligaments, lumbar zygapophyseal joints, and gluteus maximus/medius. The common measurement devices were pressure algometers from Somedic AB and Wagner Instruments, and the measurement units used were mainly kPa, kgf, N/cm2, and kg/cm2 [75,77,78,79,81,83,86,89,92,93,95,96,97,98,100,105,106,107,111,112,113,114,115,117,118,119,120,121,122]. The normative value from the data ranged from 299 to 628 kPa at the back area [118,119,120,121,122]. Twenty-four articles showed comparisons of the healthy control data with the data of the patients with LBP. The normative values and data ranged from 314 to 560 kPa and 2.2 to 13.1 kg/cm2 at the low back area [75,88,90,91,93,96,99,102,104,105,106,107,109,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121]. The abnormal PPT values in the patients with LBP were 322–451 kPa and 2.6–8.3 kg/cm2 at the low back muscle. A difference score above 52–184 kPa between the patients with LBP and the healthy control subjects indicated a meaningful difference in PPT as measured by the Somedic AB algometer (Table 3) [93,96,102,104,105,109,112,115,118].

5. Discussion

Previously published articles revealed that the individuals with higher scores in the pain-related questionnaire and with a higher score of central sensitization showed lower values on PPT; in addition, previous studies consistently demonstrated that there was a moderate to strong correlation between PPT value and disability/pain intensity [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. Although valid reference values indicative of a normal and abnormal PPT would aid in the clinical diagnosis of pain, no such reliable values and no published review articles currently exist for neck/shoulder and back pain [17].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review article to summarize and evaluate the previously published articles on PPT in patients with neck/shoulder and LBP and to analyze the existing data on PPT values. In the general population, variations in PPT can be associated with several factors, including ethnicity, sex, age, anxiety, and physical activity [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Although data on PPT collected by a number of different researchers and the use of different algometers can also be sources of variation in PPT results, in general, the studies showed the high reliability of pressure algometry [22]. However, the evaluation of PPT in general clinics has not been a popular method for patients with pain, possibly because of the difference in results among the articles showing the normative and abnormal PPT values of neck/shoulder and back pain in volunteers/patients with and without pain [11] (Table 2 and Table 3). Despite the many articles dealing with PPT data, no work has synthesized assertive pain threshold values. Therefore, we performed this literature review to better understand the problem of measuring pain sensation.
The PPT values collected from several studies were obtained from varying parts of the body and thus may not be directly comparable [22,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. However, using these values, we propose a database of PPTs that could serve as a benchmark for future research with pressure algometers on healthy subjects and subjects with some disease or pain.
Compared with healthy controls, patients experiencing chronic pain exhibit a significantly lower PPT [33,34,41,53,55,56,57,64,75,88,90,91,93,96,99,102,104,105,106,107,109,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122]. The measurements of several PPT values were collected and critically compared for different body areas. These values verified that healthy subjects have higher PPTs than those who present with neck/shoulder and back pain. Moreover, we have found evidence that depending on whether the pain is located in the neck/shoulder or low back, the intensity of pain directly affects the pain threshold, indicating that as the pain level increases, the pain threshold decreases [33,34,41,53,55,56,57,64,75,88,90,91,93,96,99,102,104,105,106,107,109,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122]. From the reviewed studies among patients assessed with a Somedic AB algometer, a meaningful difference was indicated by a difference score above 25–81 kPa at the deltoid muscle between patients with neck or shoulder pain and healthy control subjects, and by a difference score above 52–184 kPa at the paravertebral muscle between patients with LBP and healthy control subjects. We could not assess all of the abnormal differences for each device because the sample sizes in a number of the articles were too small to analyze statistically [35,40,48,73,91,102,109,116,120].
From these values, a database of PPTs in neck/shoulder and back pain can be generated. This database could serve as a benchmark for future research with pressure algometers. In addition, in conjunction with other physiological and biometric signals, it could be quite helpful in future work related to the measurement of pain. However, we still have several issues regarding PPT analysis. Each institute used each device and measured in a different way during PPT examination. This is the problem of PPT analysis for standardization. We think that worldwide guidelines are required for the standardization of PPT examination from now.
Finally, another guideline is required that describes the characteristics of an ideal algometer for the measurement of PPT. A portable algometer is needed for the measurement of the PPT of different body parts that is smaller, lighter, and cheaper than current devices. The validity and reliability of newly designed manual or electromechanical algometers can then be evaluated considering the PPT values collected and shown in this paper.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, we revealed the normative and abnormal values for neck/shoulder and back pain conditions in PPT analysis from the previously published articles. However, the instruments, methods and areas of PPT examination were not standardized. The differences between each institution and facility remain issues of concern for PPT analysis and standardization.

Author Contributions

H.S., S.T. and T.S. designed the review outline; H.S., S.T., M.M., H.I., S.I., K.S., N.N., M.F. and Y.I. drafted the manuscript; K.Y. and T.S. critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by MHLW FG Program Grant Number JPMH22FG2001.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bergman, S. Management of musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2007, 21, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Georgopoulos, V.; Akin-Akinyosoye, K.; Zhang, W.; McWilliams, D.F.; Hendrick, P.; Walsh, D.A. Quantitative sensory testing and predicting outcomes for musculoskeletal pain, disability, and negative affect: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain 2019, 160, 1920–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Banic, B.; Petersen-Felix, S.; Andersen, O.K.; Radanov, B.P.; Villiger, P.M.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Curatolo, M. Evidence for spinal cord hypersensitivity in chronic pain after whiplash injury and in fibromyalgia. Pain 2004, 107, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Price, D.D.; Staud, R.; Robinson, M.E.; Mauderli, A.P.; Cannon, R.; Vierck, C.J. Enhanced temporal summation of second pain and its central modulation in fibromyalgia patients. Pain 2002, 99, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rolke, R.; Baron, R.; Maier, C.; Tölle, T.R.; Treede, R.D.; Beyer, A.; Binder, A.; Birbaumer, N.; Birklein, F.; Bötefür, I.C.; et al. Quantitative Sensory Testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): Standardized Protocol and Reference Values. Pain 2006, 123, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Braun, M.; Bello, C.; Riva, T.; Hönemann, C.; Doll, D.; Urman, R.D.; Luedi, M.M. Quantitative Sensory Testing to Predict Postoperative Pain. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2021, 25, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Treede, R.D. The role of quantitative sensory testing in the prediction of chronic pain. Pain 2019, 160 (Suppl. 1), S66–S69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Timmerman, H.; Wilder-Smith, O.H.G.; Steegers, M.A.H.; Vissers, K.C.P.; Wolff, A.P. The Added Value of Bedside Examination and Screening QST to Improve Neuropathic Pain Identification in Patients with Chronic Pain. J. Pain Res. 2018, 11, 1307–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Castien, R.F.; van der Wouden, J.C.; De Hertogh, W. Pressure pain thresholds over the cranio-cervical region in headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Headache Pain 2018, 19, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Courtney, C.A.; Kavchak, A.E.; Lowry, C.D.; O’Hearn, M.A. Interpreting joint pain: Quantitative sensory testing in musculoskeletal management. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2010, 40, 818–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Uddin, Z.; MacDermid, J.C. Quantitative Sensory Testing in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain. Pain Med. 2016, 17, 1694–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Pavlaković, G.; Petzke, F. The role of quantitative sensory testing in the evaluation of musculoskeletal pain conditions. Curr. Rheumatol. Rep. 2010, 12, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Neziri, A.Y.; Scaramozzino, P.; Andersen, O.K.; Dickenson, A.H.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Curatolo, M. Reference values of mechanical and thermal pain tests in a pain-free population. Eur. J. Pain 2011, 15, 376–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Blankenburg, M.; Boekens, H.; Hechler, T.; Maier, C.; Krumova, E.; Scherens, A.; Magerl, W.; Aksu, F.; Zernikow, B. Reference Values for Quantitative Sensory Testing in Children and Adolescents: Developmental and Gender Differences of Somatosensory Perception. Pain 2010, 149, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Edwards, R.R.; Fillingim, R.B. Age-associated differences in responses to noxious stimuli. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2001, 56, M180–M185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chesterton, L.S.; Barlas, P.; Foster, N.E.; Baxter, D.G.; Wright, C.C. Gender differences in pressure pain threshold in healthy humans. Pain 2003, 101, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Andersen, S.; Petersen, M.W.; Svendsen, A.S.; Gazerani, P. Pressure pain thresholds assessed over temporalis, masseter, and frontalis muscles in healthy individuals, patients with tension-type headache, and those with migraine—A systematic review. Pain 2015, 156, 1409–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Cruz-Almeida, Y.; Fillingim, R.B. Can quantitative sensory testing move us closer to mechanism-based pain management? Pain Med. 2014, 15, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Izumi, M.; Petersen, K.K.; Laursen, M.B.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Graven-Nielsen, T. Facilitated Temporal Summation of Pain Correlates with Clinical Pain Intensity after Hip Arthroplasty. Pain 2017, 158, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Siao, P.; Cros, D.P. Quantitative sensory testing. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. 2003, 14, 261–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sangesland, A.; Støren, C.; Vaegter, H.B. Are preoperative experimental pain assessments correlated with clinical pain outcomes after surgery? A systematic review. Scand. J. Pain 2017, 15, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. van Helmond, N.; Aarts, H.M.; Timmerman, H.; Olesen, S.S.; Drewes, A.M.; Wilder-Smith, O.H.; Steegers, M.A.; Vissers, K.C. Is Preoperative Quantitative Sensory Testing Related to Persistent Postsurgical Pain? A Systematic Literature Review. Anesth. Analg. 2020, 131, 1146–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Arant, K.R.; Katz, J.N.; Neogi, T. Quantitative sensory testing: Identifying pain characteristics in patients with osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2022, 30, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Park, G.; Kim, C.W.; Park, S.B.; Kim, M.J.; Jang, S.H. Reliability and usefulness of the pressure pain threshold measurement in patients with myofascial pain. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2011, 35, 412–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Treede, R.D.; Rolke, R.; Andrews, K.; Magerl, W. Pain elicited by blunt pressure: Neurobiological basis and clinical relevance. Pain 2002, 98, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mutlu, E.K.; Ozdincler, A.R. Reliability and responsiveness of algometry for measuring pressure pain threshold in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2015, 27, 1961–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Woolf, C.J.; Thompson, S.W.N. The induction and maintenance of central sensitization is dependent on N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor activation; implications for the treatment of post-injury pain hypersensitivity states. Pain 1991, 44, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Coronado, R.A.; Simon, C.B.; Valencia, C.; George, S.Z. Experimental pain responses support peripheral and central sensitization in patients with unilateral shoulder pain. Clin. J. Pain 2014, 30, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Arjona Retamal, J.J.; Fernández Seijo, A.; Torres Cintas, J.D.; de-la-Llave-Rincón, A.I.; Caballero Bragado, A. Effects of Instrumental, Manipulative and Soft Tissue Approaches for the Suboccipital Region in Subjects with Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hernandez, J.V.L.; Calvo-Lobo, C.; Zugasti, A.M.; Fernandez-Carnero, J.; Beltran Alacreu, H. Effectiveness of Dry Needling with Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation of High Frequency Versus Low Frequency in Patients with Myofascial Neck Pain. Pain Physician 2021, 24, 135–143. [Google Scholar]
  31. Stieven, F.F.; Ferreira, G.E.; de Araújo, F.X.; Angellos, R.F.; Silva, M.F.; da Rosa, L.H.T. Immediate Effects of Dry Needling and Myofascial Release on Local and Widespread Pressure Pain Threshold in Individuals With Active Upper Trapezius Trigger Points: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2021, 44, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Oliveira, A.K.; Dibai-Filho, A.V.; Soleira, G.; Machado, A.C.F.; Guirro, R.R.J. Reliability of pressure pain threshold on myofascial trigger points in the trapezius muscle of women with chronic neck pain. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras. 2021, 67, 708–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Grimby-Ekman, A.; Ahlstrand, C.; Gerdle, B.; Larsson, B.; Sandén, H. Pain intensity and pressure pain thresholds after a light dynamic physical load in patients with chronic neck-shoulder pain. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2020, 21, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Heredia-Rizo, A.M.; Petersen, K.K.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Madeleine, P. Eccentric Training Changes the Pressure Pain and Stiffness Maps of the Upper Trapezius in Females with Chronic Neck-Shoulder Pain: A Preliminary Study. Pain Med. 2020, 21, 1936–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Arias-Buría, J.L.; Franco-Hidalgo-Chacón, M.M.; Cleland, J.A.; Palacios-Ceña, M.; Fuensalida-Novo, S.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C. Effects of Kinesio Taping on Post-Needling Induced Pain After Dry Needling of Active Trigger Point in Individuals With Mechanical Neck Pain. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2020, 43, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shin, H.J.; Kim, S.H.; Hahm, S.C.; Cho, H.Y. Thermotherapy Plus Neck Stabilization Exercise for Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain in Elderly: A Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rodríguez-Huguet, M.; Rodríguez-Huguet, P.; Lomas-Vega, R.; Ibáñez-Vera, A.J.; Rodríguez-Almagro, D. Vacuum myofascial therapy device for non-specific neck pain. A single blind randomized clinical trial. Complement. Ther. Med. 2020, 52, 102449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alfawaz, S.; Lohman, E.; Alameri, M.; Daher, N.; Jaber, H. Effect of adding stretching to standardized procedures on cervical range of motion, pain, and disability in patients with non-specific mechanical neck pain: A randomized clinical trial. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2020, 24, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chatchawan, U.; Thongbuang, S.; Yamauchi, J. Characteristics and distributions of myofascial trigger points in individuals with chronic tension-type headaches. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2019, 31, 306–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang-Price, S.; Zafereo, J.; Brizzolara, K.; Mackin, B.; Lawson, L.; Seeger, D.; Lawson, S. Psychometric Properties of Pressure Pain Thresholds Measured in 2 Positions for Adults with and Without Neck-Shoulder Pain and Tenderness. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2019, 42, 416–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Murray, M.; Lange, B.; Nørnberg, B.R.; Søgaard, K.; Sjøgaard, G. Self-administered physical exercise training as treatment of neck and shoulder pain among military helicopter pilots and crew: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2017, 18, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. De Meulemeester, K.E.; Castelein, B.; Coppieters, I.; Barbe, T.; Cools, A.; Cagnie, B. Comparing Trigger Point Dry Needling and Manual Pressure Technique for the Management of Myofascial Neck/Shoulder Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2017, 40, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wassinger, C.A.; Rich, D.; Cameron, N.; Clark, S.; Davenport, S.; Lingelbach, M.; Smith, A.; Baxter, G.D.; Davidson, J. Cervical & thoracic manipulations: Acute effects upon pain pressure threshold and self-reported pain in experimentally induced shoulder pain. Man. Ther. 2016, 21, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Celenay, S.T.; Kaya, D.O.; Akbayrak, T. Cervical and scapulothoracic stabilization exercises with and without connective tissue massage for chronic mechanical neck pain: A prospective, randomised controlled trial. Man. Ther. 2016, 21, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pajediene, E.; Janusauskaite, J.; Samusyte, G.; Stasaitis, K.; Petrikonis, K.; Bileviciute-Ljungar, I. Patterns of acute whiplash-associated disorder in the Lithuanian population after road traffic accidents. J. Rehabil. Med. 2015, 47, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lopez-Lopez, A.; Alonso Perez, J.L.; González Gutierez, J.L.; La Touche, R.; Lerma Lara, S.; Izquierdo, H.; Fernández-Carnero, J. Mobilization versus manipulations versus sustain apophyseal natural glide techniques and interaction with psychological factors for patients with chronic neck pain: Randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2015, 51, 121–132. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ge, H.Y.; Vangsgaard, S.; Omland, Ø.; Madeleine, P.; Arendt-Nielsen, L. Mechanistic experimental pain assessment in computer users with and without chronic musculoskeletal pain. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2014, 15, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Llamas-Ramos, R.; Pecos-Martín, D.; Gallego-Izquierdo, T.; Llamas-Ramos, I.; Plaza-Manzano, G.; Ortega-Santiago, R.; Cleland, J.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C. Comparison of the short-term outcomes between trigger point dry needling and trigger point manual therapy for the management of chronic mechanical neck pain: A randomized clinical trial. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2014, 44, 852–861, Erratum in J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2015, 45, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Andersen, C.H.; Andersen, L.L.; Zebis, M.K.; Sjøgaard, G. Effect of scapular function training on chronic pain in the neck/shoulder region: A randomized controlled trial. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2014, 24, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Casanova-Méndez, A.; Oliva-Pascual-Vaca, A.; Rodriguez-Blanco, C.; Heredia-Rizo, A.M.; Gogorza-Arroitaonandia, K.; Almazán-Campos, G. Comparative short-term effects of two thoracic spinal manipulation techniques in subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain: A randomized controlled trial. Man. Ther. 2014, 19, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cagnie, B.; Dewitte, V.; Coppieters, I.; Van Oosterwijck, J.; Cools, A.; Danneels, L. Effect of ischemic compression on trigger points in the neck and shoulder muscles in office workers: A cohort study. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2013, 36, 482–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yoo, I.G.; Yoo, W.G. The Effect of a New Neck Support Tying Method Using Thera-Band on Cervical ROM and Shoulder Muscle Pain after Overhead Work. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2013, 25, 843–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Lauche, R.; Materdey, S.; Cramer, H.; Haller, H.; Stange, R.; Dobos, G.; Rampp, T. Effectiveness of home-based cupping massage compared to progressive muscle relaxation in patients with chronic neck pain--a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e65378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fernández-Pérez, A.M.; Villaverde-Gutiérrez, C.; Mora-Sánchez, A.; Alonso-Blanco, C.; Sterling, M.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C. Muscle trigger points, pressure pain threshold, and cervical range of motion in patients with high level of disability related to acute whiplash injury. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2012, 42, 634–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Andersen, L.L.; Andersen, C.H.; Sundstrup, E.; Jakobsen, M.D.; Mortensen, O.S.; Zebis, M.K. Central adaptation of pain perception in response to rehabilitation of musculoskeletal pain: Randomized controlled trial. Pain Physician 2012, 15, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Ge, H.Y.; Nie, H.; Madeleine, P.; Danneskiold-Samsøe, B.; Graven-Nielsen, T.; Arendt-Nielsen, L. Contribution of the local and referred pain from active myofascial trigger points in fibromyalgia syndrome. Pain 2009, 147, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Gerdle, B.; Lemming, D.; Kristiansen, J.; Larsson, B.; Peolsson, M.; Rosendal, L. Biochemical alterations in the trapezius muscle of patients with chronic whiplash associated disorders (WAD)—A microdialysis study. Eur. J. Pain 2008, 12, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lemming, D.; Sörensen, J.; Graven-Nielsen, T.; Lauber, R.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Gerdle, B. Managing chronic whiplash associated pain with a combination of low-dose opioid (remifentanil) and NMDA-antagonist (ketamine). Eur. J. Pain 2007, 11, 719–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ylinen, J.; Nykänen, M.; Kautiainen, H.; Häkkinen, A. Evaluation of repeatability of pressure algometry on the neck muscles for clinical use. Man. Ther. 2007, 12, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ylinen, J.; Häkkinen, A.; Nykänen, M.; Kautiainen, H.; Takala, E.P. Neck muscle training in the treatment of chronic neck pain: A three-year follow-up study. Eura. Medicophys. 2007, 43, 161–169. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ojala, T.; Arokoski, J.P.; Partanen, J. The effect of small doses of botulinum toxin a on neck-shoulder myofascial pain syndrome: A double-blind, randomized, and controlled crossover trial. Clin. J. Pain 2006, 22, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Ylinen, J.; Takala, E.P.; Kautiainen, H.; Nykänen, M.; Häkkinen, A.; Pohjolainen, T.; Karppi, S.L.; Airaksinen, O. Effect of long-term neck muscle training on pressure pain threshold: A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Pain 2005, 9, 673–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Nabeta, T.; Kawakita, K. Relief of chronic neck and shoulder pain by manual acupuncture to tender points--a sham-controlled randomized trial. Complement. Ther. Med. 2002, 10, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Waling, K.; Sundelin, G.; Ahlgren, C.; Järvholm, B. Perceived pain before and after three exercise programs--a controlled clinical trial of women with work-related trapezius myalgia. Pain 2000, 85, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Taimela, S.; Takala, E.P.; Asklöf, T.; Seppälä, K.; Parviainen, S. Active treatment of chronic neck pain: A prospective randomized intervention. Spine 2000, 25, 1021–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Otto, A.; Emery, K.; Côté, J.N. Sex differences in perceptual responses to experimental pain before and after an experimental fatiguing arm task. Biol. Sex Differ. 2019, 10, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Sacramento, L.S.; Camargo, P.R.; Siqueira-Júnior, A.L.; Ferreira, J.P.; Salvini, T.F.; Alburquerque-Sendín, F. Presence of Latent Myofascial Trigger Points and Determination of Pressure Pain Thresholds of the Shoulder Girdle in Healthy Children and Young Adults: A Cross-sectional Study. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2017, 40, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wytrążek, M.; Huber, J.; Lipiec, J.; Kulczyk, A. Evaluation of palpation, pressure algometry, and electromyography for monitoring trigger points in young participants. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2015, 38, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shin, S.J.; An, D.H.; Oh, J.S.; Yoo, W.G. Changes in pressure pain in the upper trapezius muscle, cervical range of motion, and the cervical flexion-relaxation ratio after overhead work. Ind. Health 2012, 50, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Binderup, A.T.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Madeleine, P. Pressure pain sensitivity maps of the neck-shoulder and the low back regions in men and women. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2010, 11, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Saíz-Llamosas, J.R.; Fernández-Pérez, A.M.; Fajardo-Rodríguez, M.F.; Pilat, A.; Valenza-Demet, G.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C. Changes in neck mobility and pressure pain threshold levels following a cervical myofascial induction technique in pain-free healthy subjects. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2009, 32, 352–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Alonso-Blanco, C.; Cleland, J.A.; Rodríguez-Blanco, C.; Alburquerque-Sendín, F. Changes in pressure pain thresholds over C5-C6 zygapophyseal joint after a cervicothoracic junction manipulation in healthy subjects. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2008, 31, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Ge, H.Y.; Madeleine, P.; Cairns, B.E.; Arendt-Nielsen, L. Hypoalgesia in the referred pain areas after bilateral injections of hypertonic saline into the trapezius muscles of men and women: A potential experimental model of gender-specific differences. Clin. J. Pain 2006, 22, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nie, H.; Kawczynski, A.; Madeleine, P.; Arendt-Nielsen, L. Delayed onset muscle soreness in neck/shoulder muscles. Eur. J. Pain 2005, 9, 653–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Marcuzzi, A.; Wrigley, P.J.; Dean, C.M.; Graham, P.L.; Hush, J.M. From acute to persistent low back pain: A longitudinal investigation of somatosensory changes using quantitative sensory testing-an exploratory study. Pain Rep. 2018, 3, e641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dias, L.V.; Cordeiro, M.A.; Schmidt de Sales, R.; Dos Santos, M.M.B.R.; Korelo, R.I.G.; Vojciechowski, A.S.; de Mace do, A.C.B. Immediate analgesic effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current (IFC) on chronic low back pain: Randomised placebo-controlled trial. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2021, 27, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nim, C.G.; O’Neill, S.; Geltoft, A.G.; Jensen, L.K.; Schiøttz-Christensen, B.; Kawchuk, G.N. A cross-sectional analysis of persistent low back pain, using correlations between lumbar stiffness, pressure pain threshold, and heat pain threshold. Chiropr. Man. Ther. 2021, 29, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Leemans, L.; Elma, Ö.; Nijs, J.; Wideman, T.H.; Siffain, C.; den Bandt, H.; Van Laere, S.; Beckwée, D. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and heat to reduce pain in a chronic low back pain population: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2021, 25, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nim, C.G.; Kawchuk, G.N.; Schiøttz-Christensen, B.; O’Neill, S. The effect on clinical outcomes when targeting spinal manipulation at stiffness or pain sensitivity: A randomized trial. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 14615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Volpato, M.P.; Breda, I.C.A.; de Carvalho, R.C.; de Castro Moura, C.; Ferreira, L.L.; Silva, M.L.; Silva, J.R.T. Single Cupping Thearpy Session Improves Pain, Sleep, and Disability in Patients with Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain. J. Acupunct. Meridian Stud. 2020, 13, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Wang-Price, S.; Zafereo, J.; Couch, Z.; Brizzolara, K.; Heins, T.; Smith, L. Short-term effects of two deep dry needling techniques on pressure pain thresholds and electromyographic amplitude of the lumbosacral multifidus in patients with low back pain-a randomized clinical trial. J. Man. Manip. Ther. 2020, 28, 254–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Vaegter, H.B.; Petersen, K.K.; Sjodsholm, L.V.; Schou, P.; Andersen, M.B.; Graven-Nielsen, T. Impaired exercise-induced hypoalgesia in individuals reporting an increase in low back pain during acute exercise. Eur. J. Pain 2021, 25, 1053–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Fagundes Loss, J.; de Souza da Silva, L.; Ferreira Miranda, I.; Groisman, S.; Santiago Wagner Neto, E.; Souza, C.; Tarragô Candotti, C. Immediate effects of a lumbar spine manipulation on pain sensitivity and postural control in individuals with nonspecific low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Chiropr. Man. Ther. 2020, 28, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Plaza-Manzano, G.; Cancela-Cilleruelo, I.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Cleland, J.A.; Arias-Buría, J.L.; Thoomes-de-Graaf, M.; Ortega-Santiago, R. Effects of Adding a Neurodynamic Mobilization to Motor Control Training in Patients with Lumbar Radiculopathy Due to Disc Herniation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2020, 99, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Moreira, R.F.C.; Moriguchi, C.S.; Carnaz, L.; Foltran, F.A.; Silva, L.C.C.B.; Coury, H.J.C.G. Effects of a workplace exercise program on physical capacity and lower back symptoms in hospital nursing assistants: A randomized controlled trial. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2021, 94, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bond, B.M.; Kinslow, C.D.; Yoder, A.W.; Liu, W. Effect of spinal manipulative therapy on mechanical pain sensitivity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: A pilot randomized, controlled trial. J. Man. Manip. Ther. 2020, 28, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chapman, K.B.; van Roosendaal, B.K.; Yousef, T.A.; Vissers, K.C.; van Helmond, N. Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation Normalizes Measures of Pain Processing in Patients with Chronic Low-Back Pain: A Prospective Pilot Study using Quantitative Sensory Testing. Pain Pract. 2021, 21, 568–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Aspinall, S.L.; Jacques, A.; Leboeuf-Yde, C.; Etherington, S.J.; Walker, B.F. Pressure pain threshold and temporal summation in adults with episodic and persistent low back pain trajectories: A secondary analysis at baseline and after lumbar manipulation or sham. Chiropr. Man. Ther. 2020, 28, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Aspinall, S.L.; Leboeuf-Yde, C.; Etherington, S.J.; Walker, B.F. Changes in pressure pain threshold and temporal summation in rapid responders and non-rapid responders after lumbar spinal manipulation and sham: A secondary analysis in adults with low back pain. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 2020, 47, 102137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yildiz, S.H.; Ulaşli, A.M.; Özdemir Erdoğan, M.; Dikici, Ö.; Arikan Terzi, E.S.; Dündar, Ü.; Solak, M. Assessment of Pain Sensitivity in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain and Association With HTR2A Gene Polymorphism. Arch. Rheumatol. 2016, 32, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Imamura, M.; Chen, J.; Matsubayashi, S.R.; Targino, R.A.; Alfieri, F.M.; Bueno, D.K.; Hsing, W.T. Changes in pressure pain threshold in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Spine 2013, 38, 2098–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Aspinall, S.L.; Jacques, A.; Leboeuf-Yde, C.; Etherington, S.J.; Walker, B.F. No difference in pressure pain threshold and temporal summation after lumbar spinal manipulation compared to sham: A randomised controlled trial in adults with low back pain. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 2019, 43, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Neziri, A.Y.; Curatolo, M.; Limacher, A.; Nüesch, E.; Radanov, B.; Andersen, O.K.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Jüni, P. Ranking of parameters of pain hypersensitivity according to their discriminative ability in chronic low back pain. Pain 2012, 153, 2083–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. de Carvalho, R.C.; Parisi, J.R.; Prado, W.A.; de Araújo, J.E.; Silva, A.M.; Silva, J.R.T.; Silva, M.L. Single or Multiple Electroacupuncture Sessions in Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Are We Low-Responders to Electroacupuncture? J. Acupunct. Meridian Stud. 2018, 11, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bodes Pardo, G.; Lluch Girbés, E.; Roussel, N.A.; Gallego Izquierdo, T.; Jiménez Penick, V.; Pecos Martín, D. Pain Neurophysiology Education and Therapeutic Exercise for Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2018, 99, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. O’Neill, S.; Kjær, P.; Graven-Nielsen, T.; Manniche, C.; Arendt-Nielsen, L. Low pressure pain thresholds are associated with, but does not predispose for, low back pain. Eur. Spine J. 2011, 20, 2120–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Joseph, L.H.; Hancharoenkul, B.; Sitilertpisan, P.; Pirunsan, U.; Paungmali, A. Effects of Massage as a Combination Therapy with Lumbopelvic Stability Exercises as Compared to Standard Massage Therapy in Low Back Pain: A Randomized Cross-Over Study. Int. J. Ther. Massage Bodyw. 2018, 11, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
  98. Koppenhaver, S.L.; Walker, M.J.; Rettig, C.; Davis, J.; Nelson, C.; Su, J.; Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Hebert, J.J. The association between dry needling-induced twitch response and change in pain and muscle function in patients with low back pain: A quasi-experimental study. Physiotherapy 2017, 103, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Farasyn, A.; Lassat, B. Pressure pain thresholds in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2016, 20, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Paungmali, A.; Joseph, L.H.; Sitilertpisan, P.; Pirunsan, U.; Uthaikhup, S. Lumbopelvic Core Stabilization Exercise and Pain Modulation Among Individuals with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain. Pain Pract. 2017, 17, 1008–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mohanty, P.P.; Pattnaik, M. Effect of stretching of piriformis and iliopsoas in coccydynia. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2017, 21, 743–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Falla, D.; Gizzi, L.; Tschapek, M.; Erlenwein, J.; Petzke, F. Reduced task-induced variations in the distribution of activity across back muscle regions in individuals with low back pain. Pain 2014, 155, 944–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Imamura, M.; Alfieri, F.M.; Filippo, T.R.; Battistella, L.R. Pressure pain thresholds in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2016, 29, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Balaguier, R.; Madeleine, P.; Vuillerme, N. Is One Trial Sufficient to Obtain Excellent Pressure Pain Threshold Reliability in the Low Back of Asymptomatic Individuals? A Test-Retest Study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0160866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Hirayama, J.; Yamagata, M.; Ogata, S.; Shimizu, K.; Ikeda, Y.; Takahashi, K. Relationship between low-back pain, muscle spasm and pressure pain thresholds in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Eur. Spine J. 2006, 15, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Weinkauf, B.; Deising, S.; Obreja, O.; Hoheisel, U.; Mense, S.; Schmelz, M.; Rukwied, R. Comparison of nerve growth factor-induced sensitization pattern in lumbar and tibial muscle and fascia. Muscle Nerve 2015, 52, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Calvo-Lobo, C.; Diez-Vega, I.; Martínez-Pascual, B.; Fernández-Martínez, S.; de la Cueva-Reguera, M.; Garrosa-Martín, G.; Rodríguez-Sanz, D. Tensiomyography, sonoelastography, and mechanosensitivity differences between active, latent, and control low back myofascial trigger points: A cross-sectional study. Medicine 2017, 96, e6287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. de Oliveira, R.F.; Liebano, R.E.; Costa Lda, C.; Rissato, L.L.; Costa, L.O. Immediate effects of region-specific and non-region-specific spinal manipulative therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Phys. Ther. 2013, 93, 748–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Alfieri, F.M.; Lima, A.R.S.; Battistella, L.R.; Silva, N.C.O.V.E. Superficial temperature and pain tolerance in patients with chronic low back pain. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2019, 23, 583–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zheng, Z.; Wang, J.; Gao, Q.; Hou, J.; Ma, L.; Jiang, C.; Chen, G. Therapeutic evaluation of lumbar tender point deep massage for chronic non-specific low back pain. J. Tradit. Chin. Med. 2012, 32, 534–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. McSweeney, T.P.; Thomson, O.P.; Johnston, R. The immediate effects of sigmoid colon manipulation on pressure pain thresholds in the lumbar spine. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2012, 16, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. O’Neill, S.; Larsen, J.B.; Nim, C.; Arendt-Nielsen, L. Topographic mapping of pain sensitivity of the lower back-a comparison of healthy controls and patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. Scand. J. Pain. 2019, 19, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Yu, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y. Changes in pressure pain thresholds and Basal electromyographic activity after instrument-assisted spinal manipulative therapy in asymptomatic participants: A randomized, controlled trial. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2012, 35, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Binderup, A.T.; Holtermann, A.; Søgaard, K.; Madeleine, P. Pressure pain sensitivity maps, self-reported musculoskeletal disorders and sickness absence among cleaners. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2011, 84, 647–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. McPhee, M.E.; Graven-Nielsen, T. Recurrent low back pain patients demonstrate facilitated pronociceptive mechanisms when in pain, and impaired antinociceptive mechanisms with and without pain. Pain 2019, 160, 2866–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Farasyn, A.; Meeusen, R. The influence of non-specific low back pain on pressure pain thresholds and disability. Eur. J. Pain 2005, 9, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Żywień, U.; Barczyk-Pawelec, K.; Sipko, T. Associated Risk Factors with Low Back Pain in White-Collar Workers-A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Mailloux, C.; Beaulieu, L.D.; Wideman, T.H.; Massé-Alarie, H. Within-session test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold and mechanical temporal summation in healthy subjects. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Petersson, M.; Abbott, A. Lumbar interspinous pressure pain threshold values for healthy young men and women and the effect of prolonged fully flexed lumbar sitting posture: An observational study. World J. Orthop. 2020, 11, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kołcz, A.; Jenaszek, K. Assessment of pressure pain threshold at the cervical and lumbar spine region in the group of professionally active nurses: A cross-sectional study. J. Occup. Health 2020, 62, e12108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Nothnagel, H.; Puta, C.; Lehmann, T.; Baumbach, P.; Menard, M.B.; Gabriel, B.; Gabriel, H.H.W.; Weiss, T.; Musial, F. How stable are quantitative sensory testing measurements over time? Report on 10-week reliability and agreement of results in healthy volunteers. J. Pain Res. 2017, 10, 2067–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Selva-Sarzo, F.; Fernández-Carnero, S.; Sillevis, R.; Hernández-Garcés, H.; Benitez-Martinez, J.C.; Cuenca-Zaldívar, J.N. The Direct Effect of Magnetic Tape® on Pain and Lower-Extremity Blood Flow in Subjects with Low-Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Sensors 2021, 21, 6517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flowchart of references—screening process in this systematic review.
Figure 1. Flowchart of references—screening process in this systematic review.
Healthcare 10 01485 g001
Table 1. Type of assessment of stimulus modalities by quantitative sensory testing (QST).
Table 1. Type of assessment of stimulus modalities by quantitative sensory testing (QST).
QST TypeSensation/ModulationStimulus Modalities
ThermalWarmWarm detection threshold (WDT)
ColdCold detection threshold (CDT)
PainHeat pain threshold (HPT)
Cold pain threshold (CPT)
Suprathreshold heat pain intensity (STHPI)
MechanicalVibrationVibration detection threshold (VDT)
PainPressure pain threshold (PPT)
Suprathreshold pressure pain intensity (STPPI)
Pressure pain tolerance (PPTol)
ElectricalPainElectrical pain threshold (EPT)
Electrical pain tolerance (EPTol)
DynamicWind-upTemporal summation (TS)
Excitability of spinal cord neurons
Diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC)Conditioned pain modulation (CPM)
Table 2. Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) Values of Neck and Shoulder in Volunteers/Patients with and without Neck/shoulder Pain.
Table 2. Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) Values of Neck and Shoulder in Volunteers/Patients with and without Neck/shoulder Pain.
Authors Object of Study/SubjectAreas of PPT ExaminationDevice (Units)PPT Values in Patients/People with Neck and Shoulder Pain; Mean (±SD)PPT Values in Healthy Volunteers/Control; Mean (±SD)
Arjona Retamal JJ et al.2021Chronic neck painUpper trapeziusDigital algometer (kg/cm2)
(FPX 25, Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT)
Upper trapezius: 1.35–1.56none
Leon Hernández JV et al.2021Chronic neck painUpper trapeziusDigital algometer (kg/cm2)
(Wagner Ins, greenwich, CT, USA)
Uppe tripezius: 4.11–4.14none
Stieven FF et al.2021Chronic neck painUpper trapeziusDigital algometer (kgf)
(FPX 25, Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT)
Upper trapezius: 1.35–1.46none
Oliveira AK et al.2021Chronic neck painUpper trapeziusAlgometer (kg/cm2)
(PTR-300 model, Instrutherm, São Paulo, SP, Brazil)
Upper trapezius: 1.44–1.76none
Grimby-Ekman A et al.2020Chronic neck-shoulder painUpper trapeziusDistal algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Farsta, Sweden)
Upper trapezius: 376–411Upper trapezius: 335–436
Heredia-Rizo AM et al.2020Neck-shoulder painUpper trapeziusElectronic pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Horby, Sweden)
Upper trapezius: 226.1 ± 103.2
(177.8–274.4)
Upper trapezius: 282.2 ± 109.4
Arias-Buria JL et al.2020Mechanical neck painTriger point area of shoulderMechanical algometer (kpa)
(Pain Diagnosis and Treatment Inc., New York, NY, USA)
Triger point area of shoulder: 145.4–148.9none
Shin HJ et al.2020Chronic neck painUpper trapezius
Splenius capitis
Levator scapulae
Digital algometer (kg)
(Somedic AB, Farsta, Sweden)
Upper trapezius: 2.41–2.56
Splenius capitis: 2.56–2.90
Levator scapulae: 2.07–2.38
none
Rodríguez-Huguet M et al.2020Mechanical neck painUpper trapezius
Suboccipital
Algometer (N/cm2)
(Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT, USA)
Upper trapezius: 1.46
Suboccipital: 1.20–1.22
none
Alfawaz SS et al.2020Non-specific
mechanical neck pain
Upper trapeziusHandheld algometer (N/cm2)
(Force five™, Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT, USA)
Upper trapezius: 4.0–4.9none
Chatchawan U et al.2019Chronic tension-type headache (CTTH)
Episodic tension-type headaches (ETTH)
Head, neck, shoulder and upper back.Manual algometer (kg/cm2)
(Force Dial FDK/FDN Series Mechanical Force Gage; Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT, USA).
Head, neck, shoulder and upper back: 0.7–1.2none
Wang-Price S et al.2018Neck-shoulder painMiddle deltoid
Levator scapulae
Upper trapezius
Handheld computerized pressure algometer (kpa)
(Medoc Ltd., Ramat Yishai, Israel)
Middle deltoid: 194.7–228.6
Levator scapulae: 244.1–246.5
Upper trapezius: 167.6–204.1
Middle deltoid: 248.9–309.2
Levator scapulae: 313.7–322.0
Upper trapezius: 229.3–234.6
Murray M et al.2017Neck-shoulder pain among military helicopter pilots and crewTrapezius
Upper neck extensors
Handheld electronic pressure algometer (kpa)
(Type II Algometer, Somedic Production AB, Sweden)
Trapezius: 405–434
Upper neck extensors: 334–347
none
De Meulemeester KE et al.2017Myofascial neck/shoulder painUpper and middle trapezius, levator scapulae, infraspinatus and supraspinatusWagner FPX Digital Algometer (kg/cm2)Upper and middle trapezius, levator scapulae, infraspinatus and supraspinatus: 16.20–20.63none
Wassinger CA et al.2016Shoulder pain.ShoulderElectronic pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT, USA)
Shoulder: 5.67–5.73none
Toprak Celenay S et al.2016Neck painC7 and acromion at the middle point of the upper trapezius muscleDigital algometer (kg/cm2)
(JTech Medical Industries, ZEVEX Company)
Trapezius: 7.05–7.74none
Pajediene E et al.2015Whiplash associated painUpper part of the bodyHand-held pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Pain TestTM Algometer, Wagner Force dial FDK 20)
Upper part of the body: 2.87 ± 1.21Upper part of the body: 3.71 ± 1.69
Lopez-Lopez A et al.2015Chronic neck painC2 spinous processDigital algometer (N/cm2)
(FDX 25, Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT, USA)
C2 spinous: 1.49–1.70none
Ge HY et al.2014Computer users with or without pain in the neck-shoulder and forearmregionsMost painful or dominant side of the neck-shoulder regionDigital algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Hörby, Sweden)
Most painful or dominant side of the neck-shoulder region: 203.4–308.6Most painful or dominant side of the neck-shoulder region: 238.7–337.1
Llamas-Ramos R et al.2014Chronic neck painC7 spinous processMechanical algometer (kpa)
(Pain Dignosis and Treatment Inc., New York, NY, USA)
C7 spinous process: 188.1 ± 49.4none
Andersen CH et al.2014Chronic neck/shoulder painUpper trapezius
Lower trapezius
Pressure algometer (kpa)
(Algometer Type 2, Somedic, Hörby, Sweden)
Upper trapezius: 277–303
Lower trapezius: 308–383
none
Casanova-Méndez A et al.2014Chronic neck painUpper tarapezius
C4 spinous process
T4 spinous process
Analog pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Baseline®, FEI Inc., White Plains, NY, USA)
C4 spinous process: 1.96–2.01
T4 spinous process: 3.35–3.70
Upper tripezius: 2.79–3.46
none
Cagnie B et al.2013Office workers with mild neck and shoulder complaintsTriger point in Levator scapula/Upper Trapezius/Splenius cervicisElectronic algometer (N)
(compuFET; Hoggan Health Industries, Inc., West Jordan, UT, USA)
Triger point in Levator scapula/Upper Trapezius/Splenius cervicis: 16.2–24.5none
Yoo IG et al.2013Neck-shoulder painUpper trapezius
Middle trapezius
Dolorimeter pressure algometer (lb)
(Fabrication Enterprises, White Plains, NY, USA)
Upper trapezius: 7.2 ± 1.8
Middle trapezius: 5.8 ± 1.4
Upper trapezius: 6.3 ± 2.0
Middle trapezius: 5.0 ± 1.2
Lauche R et al.2013Chronic neck painLevator scapula
Trapezius upper
Semispinalis capitis
Digital algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Hörby, Sweden)
Levator scapula: 273.4–343.6
Trapezius upper: 229.0–273.7
Semispinalis capitis: 178.9–219.5
none
Casanova-Méndez A et al.2013Chronic neck painC4 and T4 spinous process
Trapezius
Analogue pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Baseline, FEI Inc., White Plains, NY, USA)
C4 spinous process: 1.96–2.01
T4 spinous process: 3.35–3.70
Trapezius: 2.79–3.46
none
Fernández-Pérez AM et al.2012Whiplash associated painArticular pillar of the C5–6 zygapophyseal jointsElectronic algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Sweden)
Articular pillar of the C5–6 zygapophyseal joints: 139.8–158.0Articular pillar of the C5–6 zygapophyseal joints: 205.4–212.7
Andersen LL et al.2012Neck-shoulder painUpper TrapeziusElectronic pressure algometer (kpa)
(Wagner Ins, greenwich, CT, USA)
Upper trapezius: 219–260none
Andersen LL et al.2012Neck/shoulder painUpper trapeziusElectronic pressure algometer (kpa)
(Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT, USA)
Trapezius: 219–260none
Ge HY et al.2009Fibromyalgia syndromeUpper trapeziusElectronic algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Sweden)
Trapezius: 151–156Trapezius: 151–156
Gerdle B et al.2008Whiplash associateddisordersTrapeziusElectronic pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic Algometer type 2, Sollentuna, Sweden)
Trapezius, low cervical and spraspinatus: 95–130Trapezius, low cervical and spraspinatus: 230–300
Lemming D et al.2007Whiplash associated painInfraspinatusElectronic algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Sweden)
Infraspinatus: 224.6–270.5none
Ylinen J et al.2007Chronic neck painSplenius capitis
Trapezius
Levator scapulae
Hand-held digital pressure algometer (N/cm2)
(Force fiveTM, Wagner Instruments, Box 1217, Greenwich, CT 06836, USA)
Splenius capitis: 38.9–39.6
Trapezius: 38.3–40.3
Levator scapulae: 60.2–60.7
none
Ylinen J et al.2007Chronic neck painStrenum
Trapezius middle
Lavator scapulae
Trapezius upper
Handheld algometer (N/cm2)
(Force five™, Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT, USA)
Strenum: 31–34
Trapezius middle: 28–31
Lavator scapulae: 43–51
Trapezius upper: 27–31
none
Ojala T et al.2006Neck-Shoulder Myofascial Pain SyndromeTrigger point in neck and shoulderDolorimeter (kg/cm2)
(Pain Diagnostic, Fisher).
Trigger point in neck and shoulder: 5.1–5.3none
Ylinen J et al.2005Chronic neck painSternum
Trapezius middle
Levator scapulae
Trapezius upper
Handheld electronic pressure algometer (N/cm2)
(Force five™, Wagner Ins, Greenwich, CT, USA)
Strenum: 31–36
Trapezius middle: 28–38
Lavator scapulae: 45–59
Trapezius upper: 28–38
none
Nabeta T et al.2002Neck/shoulder painNeck
Shoulder
Pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Yufu-Seiki, F P Meter, with probe of 10 mm)
Neck: 1.6–1.7
Shoulder: 2.0–2.4
none
Waling K, Sundelin G et al.2000Work-related trapezius myalgiaTrapezius upper/middle/lowerSomedicw pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic Production AB, Sollentuna, Sweden).
Trapezius upper/middle/lower: 194–253none
Taimela S et al.2000Chronic neck painTrapezius
Levator Scapulae
Mechanical force gauge (N/cm2)Trapezius: 25.9–29.6
Levator Scapulae: 40.9–41.7
none
Otto A et al.2019Healthy volunteerDeltoid
Upper trapezius
Pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Farsta, Sweden, probe size of 1 cm2 surface area)
noneDeltoid: 304.42 ± 103.42
Upper trapezius: 77.3 ± 126.90
Sacramento LS et al.2017Healthy Children and Young AdultsUpper Trapezius
Supraspinatus
Infraspinatus
Levator Scapulae
Deltoid
Digital pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(OE-220, ITO Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Ito, Japan)
noneChildren: Upper Trapezius: 1.4 ± 0.6
Supraspinatus: 2.0 ± 0.7
Infraspinatus: 2.2 ± 0.7
Deltoid: 2.1 ± 0.8 C5–6
joint: 1.3 ± 0.5
Adults: Upper Trapezius: 2.5 ± 0.9
Supraspinatus: 3.5 ± 1.3
Infraspinatus: 3.8 ± 1.3
Deltoid: 2.7 ± 1.1 C5–6
joint: 2.1 ± 0.7
Wytrążek M et al.2014Healthy volunteerwithout triger pointsTrapezius (upper part) n = 13
Sternocleido-mastoid n = 12
Deltoid (middle part) n = 48
Infraspinatus n = 13
Algometer (kg/cm2)
(Force Dial FDK/FDN Series Push Pull Force Gage;
Wagner Instruments, Riverside, CT, USA)
noneTrapezius (upper part): 8.38–9.5
Sternocleido-mastoid: 5.92–6.33
Deltoid (middle part): 7.85–8.56
Infraspinatus: 8.32–10
Shin SJ et al.2012Healthy workerUpper trapeziusDolorimeter (Lb)
(Fabrication Enterprises, White Plains, NY, USA)
noneUpper trapezius: 7.3–8.8
Binderup AT et al.2010Healthy volunteerUpper trapezius
Middle trapezius
Lower trapezius
Spinal processes
Hand-held algometer (kpa)
(Somedic® Algometer type 2, Sweden)
noneUpper trapezius: 295.2 ± 95.9
Middle trapezius: 347.5 ± 103.5
Lower trapezius: 373.0 ± 121.1
Spinal processes: 369.6 ± 116.5
Saíz-Llamosas JR et al.2009Healthy volunteerC5-C6 zygapophyseal jointsElectronic algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Sweden)
noneC5-C6 zygapophyseal joints: 175.4–185.5
Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C et al.2008Healthy volunteerC5-C6 zygapophyseal jointsElectronic algometer (kpa)
(Somedic AB, Sweden)
noneC5-C6 zygapophyseal joints: 308.4–334.5
Ge HY et al.2006Healthy volunteerTrapezius
Posterolateral neck
Pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic Algometer type 2, Sollentuna, Sweden)
noneTrapezius: 320–430
Posterolateral neck: 420–445
Ge HY et al.2005Healthy volunteerTrapezius
Posterolateral neck
Pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedicw Algometer type 2, Sollentuna, Sweden)
noneTrapezius: 440–550
Posterolateral neck: 365–405
Nie H et al.2005Healthy volunteerCervical muscle: processus transversus C5
Cervical myotendinous spot: processus transversus C7
Upper trapezius: middle point of processus spinosus C7 and acromion
Levator scapulae: 2 cm superior to the angulus superior scapulae
Angulus superior scapulae
1 cm medial to the acromioclavicular joint
Supraspinatus: 3 cm superior to the middle of spina scapulae
Infraspinatus: 3 cm distal to the middle of spina scapulae
Middle trapezius: middle point of processus spinosus and medial border of spina scapulae
Lower trapezius
Electronic pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic Algometer type 2, Sweden)
noneNeck/shoulder: Average 322
Table 3. Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) Values of Low Back in Volunteers/Patients with and without Low Back Pain (LBP).
Table 3. Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) Values of Low Back in Volunteers/Patients with and without Low Back Pain (LBP).
Authors Object of Study/SubjectAreas of PPT ExaminationDevice (Units)PPT Values in Patients/People with Low Back Pain; Mean (±SD)PPT Values in Healthy Volunteers/Control; Mean (±SD)
Zywien U et al.2022White-collar workersLumbarFDIX RS232 algometer from Wagner (N/cm2)Lumbar: 32.93–64.09Lumbar: 33.10–64.15
Selva-Sarzo F et al.2021Chronic LBPLumbarWagner Force Dial FDK 20 algometer (kgf)Lumbar: 3.68–6.83none
Dias LV et al. 2021Chronic LBPBilaterally 5 cm from the spinal process of L3 and L5Pressure algometer (kgf)
(EMG System® of Brazil).
L3: 3.5–5.2
L5: 3.6–5.3
none
Nim CG et al.2021Non-specific LBPL1 segment
L2 segment
L3 segment
L4 segment
L5 segment
Pressure algometer (kpa)
(Model 2, Somedic, Sweden)
L1 segment: 522 ± 244
L2 segment: 482 ± 228
L3 segment: 472 ± 225
L4 segment: 455 ± 225
L5 segment: 445 ± 229
none
Mailloux et al.2021Healthy volunteersLumbar erector spinae (LES) 2–3 cm laterally to L4/L5
S1 spinous process
Handheld digital algometer (kpa)
(1-cm2 probe–FPIX, Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA)
noneLES: 547.2–559.7
S1 spinous process: 517.2–536.7
Leemans L et al.2020Chronic LBP2 cm lateral to the L3 spinous process
2 cm lateral to the L5 spinous process
Near the poste-rior superior iliac spines (PSIS)
Digital pres-sure algometer (kgf)
(Wagner Force Ten)
Lower back: 6.7–7.0none
Nim CG et al.2020Non-specific LBPLumbarPressure algometer (kpa)
(Model 2, Somedic, Sweden)
Lumbar (with pain): 488.73 ± 330.95
Lumbar (with stiffness): 436.6 ± 364.9
none
Volpato MP et al.2020Chronic non-specific LBPBL23 (Shenshu)
BL24 (Qihaishu)
BL25 (Dachangshu)
Pressure algometer (unknown)
(EMG 830C, EMG System, São José dos Campos, Brazil)
BL23 (Shenshu): 7025–7844
BL24 (Qihaishu): 7258–7285
BL25 (Dachangshu): 6445–7173
none
Wang-Price S et al.2020LBPLumbarHand-held computerized pressure algometer (kpa)
(Medoc Ltd., Ramat Yishai, Israel)
Lumbar: 383.4 ± 185.5none
Vaegter HB et al. 2020LBPErector spinae muscleManual pressure algometry (kpa)
(Somedic Sales AB)
Erector spinae muscle: 450–586none
Fagundes Loss J et al.2020LBPSpinal Process/Erector10 kgf analogic pressure algometer (kgf)
(Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT-USA)
Spinal Process: 6.1–7.0
Erector: 6.8–7.2
none
Plaza-Manzano G et al.2020Lumbar radiculopathyCommon peroneal
Tibialis
Mechanical pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Pain Diagnosis and Treatment Inc., New York)
Common peroneal: 2.1–2.3
Tibialis: 3.2–3.4
none
Moreira RFC et al.2020Hospital nursing assistants with LBPDorsal longissimusHand-held algometer (kgf/cm2)
(Pain Diagnostic Treatment, New York, USA)
Dorsal longissimus: 5.52–6.55none
Bond BM et al.2020Non-specific LBPLumbar Paraspinal MusculatureDigital algometer (kg/cm2)
(Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, Connecticut)
Lumbar Paraspinal Musculature: 3.36–3.39none
Chapman KB et al.2020Chronic LBPThe most painful side of the backPressure algometer (N/cm2)
(Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA)
The most painful side of the back: 28.7 ± 4.1none
Aspinall SL et al.2020Chronic LBPLumberDigital pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(FPIX 50, Wagner Instruments, Connecticut, USA)
Lumber: 4.1–4.4Lumber: 5.5 ± 4.1
Aspinall SL et al.2020LBPLumberDigital pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(FPIX 50, Wagner Instruments, Connecticut, USA)
Lumber: 4.14–4.30none
Petersson M et al.2020Healthy volunteersSpinous processes from L1 to L5
(L1-L2, L2-L3, L3-L4 and L4-L5).
Pressure algometer (kpa)
(SOMEDIC Electronics brand, Solna, Sweden)
noneSpinous processes
L1-L2: 353–405
L2-L3: 319–361
L3-L4: 299–370
L4-L5: 306–321
Aspinall SL et al.2019LBPLumberDigital pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(FPIX 50, Wagner Instruments, Connecticut, USA)
Lumber: 5.3 ± 3.3none
Alfieri FM et al. 2019Non-specific LBPParavertebralL4–5 J Tech algometer (lb) (Salt Lake City, UT, USA)Paravertebral: 8.1–8.3
L4–5: 8.3 ± 3.6
Paravertebral: 12.9–13.1
L4–5: 12.8 ± 5.6
McPhee ME et al.2019Recurrent LBPL1 and L5
(3.5 cm lateral to the L1 and L5 spinous processes)
Rubbertipped handheld pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic, Norra Mellby, Sweden)
L1: 405
L5: 415
L1: 550
L5: 560
Kołcz A et al.2019Professionally active nursesErector spinae muscleAlgoMed FPIX 50 (Medoc, Yishai, Israel)noneErector spinae muscle: 30 ± 1.8
Marcuzzi A et al.2018Acute LBPBackPressure algometer (kpa)
(FDK40; Wagner Instrument, Greenwich, CT)
Back: 2.6–2.7Back: 2.2 ± 0.3
de Carvalho RC et al.2018LBP2 cm lateral to the L1, 3, and 5 spinous processPressure algometer (unknown)
(EMG 830C, EMG System, São José dos Campos, Brazil)
2 cm lateral to the L1, 3, and 5 spinous process: 5.29–5.68none
Bodes Pardo G et al.2018Chronic LBPSpinal process of L3Fisher algometer (kg/cm2)
(Force Dial model FDK 40)
Spinal process of L3: 2.8–3.0none
Joseph LH et al.2018Elite female weight lifters with Chronic non-specific LBPLumbar regionPressure algometer (kpa)
(Algometer type II, Somedic SenseLab AB, Sweden)
Lumbar region: 472.28–440.64none
O’Neill S et al.2018Non-specific LBPBack-LumbarPressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic model 2, 1 cm2 probe, Hørby, Sweden),
Back-Lumbar: 322 ± 196Back-Lumbar: 398 ± 194
Yildiz SH et al. 2017Chronic LBPL1 Paravertebral level
L3 Paravertebral
L5 Paravertebral
Manual algometer (unknown)L1 Paravertebral: 6.7–7.3
L3 Paravertebral: 6.8–7.3
L5 Paravertebral: 6.7–7.2
L1 Paravertebral: 7.6–9.5
L3 Paravertebral: 7.4–9.4
L5 Paravertebral: 7.6–9.5
Shane LG et al.2017LBPL3, L4, and L5 paraspinal musclesDigital pressurealgometer (N/cm2)
(Wagner Force Ten FDX, Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT)
L3, L4, and L5 paraspinal muscles: 6.32–6.59none
Paungmali A et al.2017Chronic non-specific LBPLumbar regionPressure algometer (kpa)
(Algometer type II; Somedic Production AB, Sollentuna, Sweden)
Lumbar region: 509.8 ± 133.3none
Mohanty PP et al.2017CoccydyniaCoccygeal regionModified syringe algometer (unknown)Coccygeal region: 2.2–2.5none
Calvo-Lobo C et al.2017Myofascial pain syndromeLumbar erector spinae musclesManual mechanical algometer (kg/cm2) (FDK/FDN, Wagner Instruments, 1217 Greenwich, CT 06836)N = 20 (Active trigger points): 2.97 ± 0.82
N = 20 (Latent trigger points): 3.56 ± 0.77
N = 20 (Controls points): 4.49 ± 0.90
Nothnagel H et al.2017Healthy volunteersLumbar paraspinalPressure gauge device (kpa)
(FDN200, Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA)
noneLumbar paraspinal: 589.68–628.32
Farasyn A et al.2016Chronic non-specific LBPErector spinae T8
Erector spinae T10
Erector spinae L1
Erector spinae L3
Gluteus maximus pars superior
Gluteus maximus pars inferior
Electric pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(MYOMETER, Penny & Giles, U.K.),
Erector spinae T8: 3.96 ± 1.30
Erector spinae T10: 3.73 ± 1.10
Erector spinae L1: 3.71 ± 1.20
Erector spinae L3: 5.29 ± 1.27
Gluteus maximus pars superior: 3.73 ± 1.17
Gluteus maximus pars inferior: 3.84 ± 0.94
Erector spinae T8: 7.03 ± 1.50
Erector spinae T10: 7.77 ± 1.31
Erector spinae L1: 8.69 ± 1.66
Erector spinae L3: 9.86 ± 1.41
Gluteus maximus pars superior: 9.10 ± 1.83Gluteus maximus pars inferior: 8.81 ± 2.01
Imamura M et al.2016Chronic non-specific LBPGluteus medius middle portion
Gluteus medius posterior portion
Gluteus minimus
Gluteus maximus
Piriformis
Quadratus Lumborum
Iliopsoas
Ligaments T12-L1/ L1-L2/ L2-L3/L3-L4/L4-L5
L5-S1/S1-S2/S2-S3
Pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Pain Diagnostics, Great Neck, NY).
Gluteus medius middle portion: 5.08 ± 2.12
Gluteus medius posterior portion: 4.92 ± 1.95
Gluteus minimus: 5.36 ± 2.20
Gluteus maximus: 5.20 ± 2.25
Piriformis: 5.70 ± 2.60
Quadratus Lumborum: 4.61 ± 1.85
Iliopsoas: 3.97 ± 1.78
Ligaments T12-L1: 5.09 ± 2.63
L1-L2: 4.97 ± 2.71
L2-L3: 4.96 ± 2.73
L3-L4: 4.93 ± 2.58
L4-L5: 4.74 ± 2.22
L5-S1: 4.83 ± 2.54
S1-S2: 5.00 ± 2.91
S2-S3: 5.25 ± 2.91
none
Balaguier R et al.2016Healthy volunteersLumbar spinal processes
L1-L5
Somedic Algometer (kpa)
(Type 2, Sollentuna, Sweden)
noneLumbar spinal processes
L1: 593.4–654.6
L2: 616.0–664.1
L3: 573.4–638.6
L4: 560.9–657.6
L5: 607.5–653.9
Weinkauf B et al.2015Healthy volunteersLumbarHomogeneous pressure (kpa)
(Wagner Instruments, USA)
noneLumbar: 703 ± 24
Falla D et al.2014Chronic non-specific LBP8 locations at lumbar Electronic algometer (kpa)
(Somedic Production, Stockholm, Sweden)
8 locations at lumbar: 268.0 ± 165.98 locations at lumbar: 320.1 ± 162.1
Imamura M et al.2013Chronic LBPSuprainterspinous ligaments situated between
T12–L/L1–L2/L2–L3/L3–L4/L4–L5/L5–S1/S1–S2/S2–S3
Pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Pain Diagnostics, Great Neck, NY)
Suprainterspinous ligaments situated between
T12–L: 5.06 ± 2.47
L1–L2: 4.84 ± 2.23
L2–L3: 4.64 ± 2.05
L3–L4: 4.83 ± 2.19
L4–L5: 4.65 ± 1.74
L5–S1: 5.40 ± 3.20
S1–S2: 5.77 ± 3.55
S2–S3: 5.71 ± 3.51
Suprainterspinous ligaments situated between
T12–L: 7.16 ± 2.53
L1–L2: 7.29 ± 2.21
L2–L3: 7.49 ± 2.01
L3–L4: 7.46 ± 2.57
L4–L5: 8.10 ± 2.46
L5–S1: 8.38 ± 2.40
S1–S2: 8.89 ± 2.63
S2–S3: 8.75 ± 2.18
de Oliveira RF et al.2013Chronic non-specific LBPL3/L5 spinous processPressure algometer (N)
(Kratos model DDK, Kratos Ltd., São Paulo, Brazil)
L3/L5 spinous process: 48.90–49.63none
Neziri AY et al.2012Chronic LBPSite of most severe pain at low back
Nonpainful site at low back
Electronic pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic, Hörby, Sweden)
Site of most severe pain at low back: 168 ± 113
Nonpainful site at low back: 249 ± 132
Site of most severe pain at low back: 352 ± 131
Nonpainful site at low back: 352 ± 131
Zheng Z et al.2012Chronic non-specific LBPLumbar tender pointModel OE-220, made in Ito
ultrashort wave corporation of Japan (kg/cm2)
Lumbar tender point: 3.7–3.8none
McSweeney TP et al. 2012Healthy volunteersParavertebral soft tissue at L1Handheld manual digital pressure algometer (N) (Wagner FPX 25)noneParavertebral soft tissue at L1: 53.7–60.1
Yu X et al.2012Healthy volunteersL5-S1 zygapophyseal jointsMechanical pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Wagner, Greenwich, CT)
noneL5-S1 zygapophyseal joints: 4.87–5.01
O’Neill S et al.2011Chronic LBPSpinous process of L4Pressure algometer (kpa)
(Model 2, Somedic, Sweden)
Spinous process of L4: 677Spinous process of L4: 755
Binderup AT et al.2011Healthy volunteers (cleaners)Spinal processes L1–5
Low back
Erector Spinae
Hand-held pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic Algometer type 2, Sweden)
noneSpinal processes L1–5: 427.9 ± 204.7
Erector Spinae: 409.8 ± 194.5
Hirayama J et al.2006Lumbar disc herniation2 cm lateral to the L1, 3 and 5 spinous process
5 cm lateral to the L1 and 3 spinous process
Electronic pressure algometer (kpa)
(Somedic, Farsta, Sweden)
2 cm lateral to the L1: 451.4 ± 214.8
L3: 348.5 ± 179.6
L5: 267.7 ± 105.1
5 cm lateral to the L1: 325.6 ± 133.0
L3: 297.1 ± 157.2
2 cm lateral to the L1: 438.1–441.3
L3: 418.5–424.5
L5: 395.5–401.3
5 cm lateral to the L1: 331.8–362.1
L3: 314.0–335.3
Farasyn A et al.2005Subacute non-specific LBPErector spinae mass T6, T10, L1, L3 and L5
Gluteus maximus
Gluteus medius
Tensor fasciae latae (TFL).
Mechanical Fischer pressure algometer (kg/cm2)
(Pain Diagnostics and Thermography, Great Neck, NY, USA)
Erector spinae mass
T6: 6.7 ± 1.8
T10: 6.6 ± 1.1
L1: 6.4 ± 1.2
L3: 5.3 ± 14
L5: 7.2 ± 1.6
Gluteus maximus: 6.4 ± 1.6
Gluteus medius: 6.1 ± 1.6
TFL: 6.3 ± 1.5
Erector spinae mass
T6: 7.6 ± 1.1
T10: 7.4 ± 1.1
L1: 7.4 ± 1.2
L3: 7.7 ± 1.7
L5: 9.5 ± 1.2
Gluteus maximus: 8.0 ± 1.5
Gluteus medius: 7.2 ± 1.5
TFL: 7.1 ± 1.4
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Suzuki, H.; Tahara, S.; Mitsuda, M.; Izumi, H.; Ikeda, S.; Seki, K.; Nishida, N.; Funaba, M.; Imajo, Y.; Yukata, K.; et al. Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1485. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10081485

AMA Style

Suzuki H, Tahara S, Mitsuda M, Izumi H, Ikeda S, Seki K, Nishida N, Funaba M, Imajo Y, Yukata K, et al. Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain. Healthcare. 2022; 10(8):1485. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10081485

Chicago/Turabian Style

Suzuki, Hidenori, Shu Tahara, Mao Mitsuda, Hironori Izumi, Satoshi Ikeda, Kazushige Seki, Norihiro Nishida, Masahiro Funaba, Yasuaki Imajo, Kiminori Yukata, and et al. 2022. "Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain" Healthcare 10, no. 8: 1485. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10081485

APA Style

Suzuki, H., Tahara, S., Mitsuda, M., Izumi, H., Ikeda, S., Seki, K., Nishida, N., Funaba, M., Imajo, Y., Yukata, K., & Sakai, T. (2022). Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain. Healthcare, 10(8), 1485. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10081485

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop