Concordância entre única medida e a média de três medidas do limiar de dor por pressão craniofacial: viabilidade em adultos saudáveis.

Le résumé fourni par la source

BackgroundPressure pain threshold assessment is used to quantify pain sensitivity in headache disorders, reflecting peripheral and central sensitization of the nociceptive system. Traditional protocols involve multiple measurements to ensure reliability, but these protocols are time-consuming and may cause participant fatigue and discomfort. ObjectiveTo evaluate the agreement and reliability between a single Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) measurement and the mean of three measurements in the craniofacial of individuals without a history of headache disorders, using a digital algometer. MethodsCross-sectional methodological study with ten volunteers (60% female, mean age 43±8 years) without headache history. Pressure pain threshold was assessed at eight craniofacial sites (bilateral: occipital, temporal, masseter; central: frontal, vertex) using a digital algometer. Three consecutive measurements were performed at each site with 10-minute intervals. Reliability between measurements was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), while agreement and systematic bias were evaluated using Bland–Altman analysis. ResultsIntra-rater reliability ranged from moderate to good (ICC=0.54–0.96) across individual sites, with good-to-excellent reliability in bilateral occipital, temporal, and masseter sites (ICC=0.62–0.96). Reliability between the single measurement and the mean of three trials was uniformly excellent (ICC=0.93–0.98) Bland-Altman analysis showed minimal bias (mean differences near zero) and relatively narrow limits of agreement in peripheral sites, with wider limits observed in central regions.ConclusionA single pressure pain threshold measurement demonstrated agreement comparable to the mean of three measurements, supporting the potential use of simplified assessment protocols.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.