Search

Objective On the basis of our experience in the application of the mechanical algometer and a number of pilot experiments, we speculated that 0.1- and 0.01-cm2 probes might improve the measurement of mechanical pain sensitivity relative to the conventional 1-cm2 probe. Here, we examined the accuracy, feasibility, and applicability of these probes in detecting the mechanical pain sensitivity. Design Mechanical pain threshold and tolerance tests were performed on subjects using the three probes of 1, 0.1, and 0.01 cm2 in random order. We compared the application of these probes. Setting The study was set at the Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. Subjects Fifty healthy male Han Chinese subjects were recruited. Outcome Measures We compared the qualities of stimulus-evoked pain, test stability, the measuring time, the subjects' acceptance level of the procedure, the validity of pain measurement, and the arduousness of the task for the investigator among the three different size probes. Results Compared with the conventional 1-cm2 probe, the 0.01- and 0.1-cm2 probes resulted in the subjects responding to stimulus-evoked pain more quickly, accurately, and consistently, and also made the measurement more comfortable for investigators. Up to 80% of the subjects reported the pain quality as a pricking sensation when the 0.01-cm2 probe was used. Conclusion The use of the 0.1-cm2 probe might be more suitable as an optimized method for the detection of pressure pain sensitivity in clinical studies. In addition, the 0.01-cm2 probe could potentially serve as an alternative to the weighted needle pinprick, providing continuous quantizing detection for pricking pain sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]