These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of perception threshold testing and thermal-vibratory testing.
    Author: Lowenstein L, Jesse K, Kenton K.
    Journal: Muscle Nerve; 2008 Apr; 37(4):514-7. PubMed ID: 18067137.
    Abstract:
    Current perception threshold testing (CPT) is thought to selectively activate and measure three types of afferent nerves. However, it has not been standardized or compared with better-studied methods of sensory testing. Our objectives were to determine the relationship between CPT (2000 Hz, 250 Hz, 5 Hz) and quantitative sensory testing (QST) using vibratory and heat thresholds, and to assess the test-retest reliability of both methods. Twenty-seven healthy women were enrolled. Each woman underwent CPT and QST on the volar part of the arm. Sensory thresholds were determined by the method of limits; 20 women underwent repeated CPT testing and QST after 1 week to determine test-retest reliability. Thermal thresholds were moderately correlated with CPT at 5 Hz (rho = 0.49, P = 0.009), as were vibratory thresholds and CPT at 2000 Hz (rho = 0.5, P = 0.008). In contrast to CPT measurements, warm and vibratory and cold thresholds were correlated 1 week apart (rho = 0.73, P = 0.0001; rho = 0.83, P = 0.0001; and rho = 0.47, P = 0.0037, respectively). CPT testing and QST seem to be measuring similar afferent nerve-fiber populations, but QST has better test-retest reliability than CPT testing, justifying its role in clinical or research studies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]