Pressure pain thresholds, clinical assessment, and differential diagnosis: reliability and validity in patients with myogenic pain

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Four studies are presented testing the validity and reliability of pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and of examination parameters believed to be important in the clinical assessment of sites commonly used for such measures in patient samples. Forty-five patients with a myogenous temporomandibular disorder were examined clinically prior to PPT measures. Criteria for history and examination included functional aspects of the pain, tissue quality of the pain site, and the type of pain elicited from palpation. Control sites within the same muscle and in the contralateral muscle were also examined. PPTs were measured as an index of tenderness using a strain gauge algometer at these sites. The data from the 5 male subjects were excluded from subsequent analyses due to the higher PPT in the males and to their unequal distribution among the various factorial conditions. The first study demonstrated strong validity in PPT measures between patients (using pain sites replicating the patients'' pain) and matched controls (n = 11). The PPT was not significantly different between the primary pain site (referred pain and non-referred pain collapsed) and the no-pain control site in the same muscle (n = 16). The PPT was significantly lower at the pain site compared to the no-pain control site in the contralateral muscle (n = 13). The second study indicated adequate reliability in patient samples of the PPT measures. In the third study, the PPT was significantly lower at sites producing referred pain on palpation compared to sites producing localized pain on palpation. The PPT findings from the control sites were inconsistent on this factor. The fourth study presented preliminary evidence that palpable bands and nodular areas in muscle were most commonly associated with muscle regions that produce pain; such muscle findings were not specific, however, for regions that produce pain. Further, the intraexaminer reliability in reassessing these pain sites qualitatively was only fair. Referred pain had a poor association with the pain pattern and physical findings, which may suggest a need to reevaluate part of the theory regarding referred muscle pain. The reliability of PPT measures was better overall than the reliability of the signs and site-specific symptoms, suggesting that pressure pain thresholds may be an important tool in clinical studies of pain. PTT measures demonstrate a high within-subject variability in pain patient subjects as well as non-pain subjects. Factors such as gender, type of pain, and relation of the palpation-pain to the pain of chief complaint appear to have important effects on PPT measures. The type of pain response on palpation may be an important determinant of the clinical examination procedure.