Profile
International Journal of Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Volume 3 (2017), Article ID 3:IJPTR-130, 5 pages
https://doi.org/10.15344/2455-7498/2017/130
Research Article
Method of Limit and Method of Level for Thermal and Pain Detection Assessment

Yi-Jing Lue1,2, Yu-Cheng Shih3, Yen-Mou Lu4,5 and Ya-Fen Liu2,6*

1Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Sciences, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
2Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
3National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
4Department of Orthopedics, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
5Department of Orthopedics, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
6Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Kaohsiung Municipal Hsiao-Kang Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Dr. Ya-Fen Liu, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Kaohsiung Municipal Hsiao-Kang Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, No. 482, Shanming Rd., Hsiaogang, Kaohsiung 812, Taiwan, Tel: 886-7-8036783 (ext. 3529) E-mail: yijilu@kmu.edu.tw
13 December 2016; 03 February 2017; 05 February 2017
Lue YJ, Shih YC, Lu YM, Liu YF (2017) Method of Limit and Method of Level for Thermal and Pain Detection Assessment. Int J Phys Ther Rehab 3: 130.doi: https://doi.org/10.15344/2455-7498/2017/130
This work was supported by grants from the National Science Council (NSC 101-2629-B-037-002).

Abstract

Background: Many patients referred for physical therapy have pain and somatosensory problems. Thermal quantitative sensory testing (QST) is used for assessing somatosensory function. Method of limits (MLI) and method of levels (MLE) are two commonly measurement methods used for thermal QST. A good measurement method for clinical application should be convenient and reliable. The purpose of this study was to compare the acceptability and reliability of the MLI and MLE.
Methods: Twenty-eight healthy adults (14 males and 14 females) participated in a thermal QST test retest study. The types of the thermal QSTs included the Cold Detection Threshold (CDT), Warm Detection Threshold (WDT), Cold Pain Threshold (CPT), and Heat Pain Threshold (HPT). Participants were examined with thermal QST using the two methods (MLI and MLE), and then re-examined after one week. Both the relative reliability and absolute reliability were estimated.
Results: The acceptability was better in the MLI than in the MLE. Many trials of the MLE was needed (the mean number of trials = 12.2; range from 7 to 27 trials). The relative reliability of the MLI and MLE were similar; the range of intraclass correlation coefficient were 0.65 to 0.88 and 0.69 to 0.86 for the MLI and MLE, respectively. However, the absolute reliability of the CDT, WDT, and HPT on the MLE were not as accurate as those on the MLI.
Conclusion: When we compared the acceptability and reliability, the MLI was superior to the MLE. The MLI is recommended as useful method for measuring thermal and pain thresholds.