Psychometric properties of quantitative sensory testing focusing on healthy and patients with shoulder pain: a systematic review protocol

Paraskevi Bilika, Konstantina Savvoulidou, Achilleas Paliouras, Zacharias Dimitriadis, Evdokia Billis, Nikolaos Strimpakos, Eleni Kapreli


Background: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a battery of non-invasive psychophysical methods to assess the function of somatosensory system. Although the use of QST is widespread and several studies in patients with chronic shoulder pain have used it, the level of evidence for the psychometric properties has not been established. The aim of this protocol is to investigate, through a systematic review, the level of evidence for the psychometric properties of QST in the shoulder.

Methods: For conducting and reporting this review the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines will be used. Nine databases including PubMed, Medline, AMED (via EBSCO), PEDRO, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, SportDiscus, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library will be searched for the period from their inception until September 2021. Two reviewers (BP and SK) will independently evaluate the retrieved articles (titles and abstracts) and the psychometric characteristics checklist based on the standards from the COSMIN. The modified grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

Conclusions: Evaluation of the level of evidence for the psychometric properties of QST in the shoulder is an essential step for evidence-based assessment in clinical practice.

Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021232778.


Quantitative sensory testing, Shoulder, Psychometric properties

Full Text:



Djade CD, Porgo TV, Zomahoun HTV, Perrault-Sullivan G, Dionne CE. Incidence of shoulder pain in 40 years old and over and associated factors: A systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2020;24(1):39-50.

Menendez ME, Baker DK, Oladeji LO, Fryberger CT, McGwin G, Ponce BA. Psychological Distress Is Associated with Greater Perceived Disability and Pain in Patients Presenting to a Shoulder Clinic. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(24):1999-2003.

Imagama S, Ando K, Kobayashi K. Shoulder pain has most impact on poor quality of life among various types of musculoskeletal pain in middle-aged and elderly people: Yakumo study. Modern Rheumatology. 2020;30:568-72.

Liu R, Onks C, Petscavage-Thomas J, Walker E, Berg A, Silvis M, Dhawan A. Prevalence of shoulder labral abnormalities on MRI in a non-athletic asymptomatic young adult population. Skeletal Radiol. 2021;50(5):921-5.

Schwartzberg R, Reuss BL, Burkhart BG. High Prevalence of Superior Labral Tears Diagnosed by MRI in Middle-Aged Patients With Asymptomatic Shoulders. Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. 2016;4:2325967115623212.

Chimenti RL, Frey-Law LA, Sluka KA. A Mechanism-Based Approach to Physical Therapist Management of Pain. Physical therapy. 2018;98:302-14.

Harte SE, Harris RE, Clauw DJ. The neurobiology of central sensitization. Journal of Behavioral Research. 2018;23:12137.

Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, Doody C. The Discriminative validity of "nociceptive," "peripheral neuropathic," and "central sensitization" as mechanisms-based classifications of musculoskeletal pain. Clin J Pain. 2011;27(8):655-63.

Cruz-Almeida Y, Fillingim RB. Can quantitative sensory testing move us closer to mechanism-based pain management? Pain medicine (Malden, Mass). 2014;15:61-72.

Rolke R, Magerl W, Campbell KA. Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials. European journal of pain (London, England). 2006;10:77-88.

Arendt-Nielsen L, Morlion B, Perrot S. Assessment and manifestation of central sensitisation across different chronic pain conditions. 2018;22:216-41.

Uddin Z, MacDermid JC. Quantitative Sensory Testing in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain. Pain medicine (Malden, Mass). 2016;17:1694-703.

Hall TB, Schafer A, Tampin B, Moloney N. Quantitative sensory testing: implications for clinical practice. In: Jull G MA, Falla D, Lewis J, McCarthy C, Sterling M, (ed) Grieve's modern musculoskeletal physiotherapy. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Elsevier. 2015;194-201.

Hidalgo-Lozano A, Fernandez-de-las-Penas C, Alonso-Blanco C, et al. Muscle trigger points and pressure pain hyperalgesia in the shoulder muscles in patients with unilateral shoulder impingement: a blinded, controlled study. Experimental brain research. 2010;202:915-25.

Paul TM, Soo Hoo J, Chae J, Wilson RD. Central hypersensitivity in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(12):2206-9.

Alagappan T, Senthilkumar S, Dhanani D. Recognition of central nervous system sensitization and its risk factors in patients with unilateral musculoskeletal shoulder pain. 2019;13:102-8.

Arnstad ED, Iversen JM, Uglem M, Glerup M, Romundstad PR, Sand T, Rygg M. Pain sensitivity in young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a quantitative sensory testing study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22(1):262.

Smith SM, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Baron R, Polydefkis M, Tracey I, et al. The Potential Role of Sensory Testing, Skin Biopsy, and Functional Brain Imaging as Biomarkers in Chronic Pain Clinical Trials: IMMPACT Considerations. J Pain. 2017;18(7):757-77.

van Helmond N, Aarts HM, Timmerman H. Is Preoperative Quantitative Sensory Testing Related to Persistent Postsurgical Pain? A Systematic Literature Review. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2020;131:1146-55.

Giannoni-Luza S, Pacheco-Barrios K, Cardenas-Rojas A. Noninvasive motor cortex stimulation effects on quantitative sensory testing in healthy and chronic pain subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2020;161:1955-75.

Tampin B, Slater H, Jacques A, Lind CRP. Association of quantitative sensory testing parameters with clinical outcome in patients with lumbar radiculopathy undergoing microdiscectomy. Eur J Pain. 2020;24(7):1377-92.

Clark J, Nijs J, Yeowell G, Goodwin PC. What Are the Predictors of Altered Central Pain Modulation in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Populations? A Systematic Review. Pain Physician. 2017;20(6):487-500.

Georgopoulos V, Akin-Akinyosoye K, Zhang W. Quantitative sensory testing and predicting outcomes for musculoskeletal pain, disability, and negative affect: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2019;160:1920-32.

Alqarni AM, Manlapaz D, Baxter D. Test Procedures to Assess Somatosensory Abnormalities in Individuals with Peripheral Joint Pain: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties. Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain. 2018;18:895-924.

Kennedy DL, Kemp HI, Ridout D. Reliability of conditioned pain modulation: a systematic review. Pain. 2016;157:2410-9.

Geber C, Klein T, Azad S, Birklein F, Gierthmühlen J, Huge V, et al. Test-retest and interobserver reliability of quantitative sensory testing according to the protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): a multi-centre study. Pain. 2011;152(3):548-56.

Moloney NA, Hall TM, Doody CM. Reliability of thermal quantitative sensory testing: a systematic review. Journal of rehabilitation research and development. 2012;49:191-207.

Marcuzzi A, Dean CM, Wrigley PJ, Chakiath RJ, Hush JM. Prognostic value of quantitative sensory testing in low back pain: a systematic review of the literature. J Pain Res. 2016;9:599-607.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:7647.

Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, Terwee CB. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171-9.

Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147-57.

Souza ACD, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello EdB. Propriedades psicométricas na avaliação de instrumentos: avaliação da confiabilidade e da validade. J Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde. 2017;26:649-59.

Parikh R, Mathai A, Parikh S, Sekhar GC, Thomas R. Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Indian journal of ophthalmology. 2008;56:45-50.