Second, the high false negative rate (34–40%) (Hill et al 2011) means that many of the ‘low risk’ group will still be at risk of having a poor outcome. The SBST risk categories should therefore supplement and not replace clinical judgment. Finally, full length questionnaires may still be more useful for selecting and monitoring treatment in the high risk group (Beneciuk et al 2012). Further research could look at including ‘resilience’ factors which may have a unique predictive ability for chronic pain (Sturgeon and Zautra 2010). Prospective validation studies in different cultural and clinical settings will also make the tool more appealing to
physiotherapists. “
“The Ten Test (TT) is a quantitative sensory test requiring no test equipment (Strauch 2003). The subject reports his/her light touch perception of the skin area being tested compared to the reference normal area when the examiner gives Ribociclib molecular weight a simultaneous stimulus by stroking a
normal area and the area under examination. When examining subjects with bilateral hand involvement it has been suggested that a normally innervated facial comparator could be used. The response from the patient rating the sensibility of the test area is recorded as a fraction out of 10 between 1/10 and 10/10 (10 = normal sensory perception). The test may be repeated to Cabozantinib chemical structure produce an average score. Detailed test procedure available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvjsqbIfUM. Reliability and validity: Bumetanide The TT has been found to be reliable and repeatable. Inter-observer reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.91) and very strong agreement (D = 1.00, p < 0.003) was found between examiners ( Strauch 1997; Sun 2010). Good to excellent intra-observer reliability (ICC = 0.62 to 0.90, p < 0.05) was found ( Strauch 1997) when equal delivery of the stimulus pressure to the test and normal areas was evaluated. Multiple studies demonstrated the TT may be used for outcome measurement ( Novak 2003, 2005; Humphreys 2007). The TT is recommended for: clinical use in patients age > 5 years ( Sun 2010); different conditions of upper extremities
( Patel 1999; Faught 2002; Novak 2005), and lower extremities ( Humphreys 2007); and pre/post operative sensory evaluation ( Strauch 1997, MacDermid 2004, Novak 2003). This test provides a quantitative score to the ratings obtained while the examiner administers light moving touch stimuli to a test area and simultaneously comparing that to a reference area of ‘normal’ sensation. Advantages: The TT is quick to administer, requires no equipment and can be used where self-report measures are not feasible or possible. It provides a reliable option for clinicians in busy clinical settings, and/or where quantitative sensory testing equipment is unavailable. Limitations: The test requires patient co-operation and the concept of rating sensibility may be cognitively challenging for some patients.