The Relationship between Nociceptive Detection Thresholds and Pressure-and Electrical Pain Thresholds:An Explorative Study in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Recently, methods have been developed enabling the characterization of the nociceptive function at the detection threshold level by measuring nociceptive detection thresholds (NDTs), rather than at the level of the pain threshold via pain threshold (PT) measurements. Both NDT and PT measurements aim to characterize (parts of) the nociceptive system. To date it is unclear if, and if so to what extent, the two outcomes relate to one another. In this study, the primary aim is to explore the relationship between the two measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). As secondary aim, we explore differences in NDT between these RA patients with age-and sex-matched healthy controls (HC) from a readily existing dataset. In total 46 RA patients have been recruited, whereby the pressure-(PPT; bilaterally at two locations) and electrical (EPT) pain threshold were evaluated, as well as the NDTs. Significant, positive correlations were found between the EPT and PPT (R=0.54-0.60), but not with the NDTs (R≤0.25). As compared to HC, higher NDTs were found in the RA group. As the presence of a statistically significant weak relationship can only be evaluated using a larger sample size, our results indicate that there is no moderate or stronger relation between PT and NDT outcomes. This implicates that the two outcomes are not strongly driven by the same (nociceptive) mechanism(s). Future research into NDTs and what factors and/or mechanisms affect the outcome, could yield relevant insights into how to use and interpret the results of this relatively new method.Clinical Relevance-The evaluation of nociceptive detection thresholds, in isolation or together with conventionally evaluated pain thresholds, might provide valuable and complementary insights into nociceptive (dis)function in man.</p

Excellent adherence and no contamination by physiotherapists involved in a randomized controlled trial on reactivation of COPD patients: a qualitative process evaluation study

Tanja W Effing,1,2 Manon Krabbenbos,3 Marcel E Pieterse,4 Paul DLPM van der Valk,3 Gerhard A Zielhuis,5 Huib AM Kerstjens,6 Job van der Palen,371Repatriation General Hospital, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Daw Park, 2Flinders University, School of Medicine, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; 3Medisch Spectrum Twente, Department of Pulmonology, Enschede, 4Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Enschede, 5Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and HTA, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 6Department of Pulmonology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 7Department of Research Methodology, Measurement and Data Analysis, University of Twente, The Netherlands Objective: To assess the adherence of physiotherapists to the study protocol and the occurrence of contamination bias during the course of a randomized controlled trial with a recruitment period of 2 years and a 1-year follow-up (COPE-II study).Study design and setting: In the COPE-II study, intervention patients received a standardized physiotherapeutic reactivation intervention (COPE-active) and control patients received usual care. The latter could include regular physiotherapy treatment. Information about the adherence of physiotherapists with the study protocol was collected by performing a single interview with both intervention and control patients. Patients were only interviewed when they were currently receiving physiotherapy. Interviews were performed during two separate time periods, 10 months apart. Nine characteristics of the COPE-active intervention were scored. Scores were converted into percentages (0%, no aspects of COPE-active; 100%, full implementation of COPE-active).Results: Fifty-one patients were interviewed (first period: intervention n = 14 and control n = 10; second period: intervention n = 18 and control n = 9). Adherence with the COPE-active protocol was high (median scores: period 1, 96.8%; period 2, 92.1%), and large contrasts in scores between the intervention and control group were found (period 1: 96.8% versus 22.7%; period 2: 92.1% versus 25.0%). The scores of patients treated by seven physiotherapists who trained patients of both study groups were similar to the scores of patients treated by physiotherapists who only trained patients of one study group.Conclusion: The adherence of physiotherapists with the COPE-active protocol was high, remained unchanged over time, and no obvious contamination bias occurred.Keywords: physiotherapy, guideline adherence, compliance, bias, randomized controlled trial, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseas