Assessment of the perceptual threshold of touch (PTT) with high-frequency transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (Hf/TENS) in elderly patients with stroke: a reliability study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2003
Assessment of the perceptual threshold of touch (PTT) with high-frequency transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (Hf/TENS) in elderly patients with stroke: a reliability study
Objective: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability and reliability between occasions of assessing the perceptual threshold of touch (PTT) with high-frequency transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (Hf/TENS) in elderly patients with stroke.
Design: A test–retest study of reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and limits of agreement.
Setting: Geriatric rehabilitation unit.
Subjects: Thirty-two consecutive patients with stroke 3 65 years of age.
Main outcome measures: Two-channel current stimulator TENS CEFAR Tempo with four self-adhesive skin electrodes. The stimulator delivered a high-frequency constant current of 40 Hz. The strength of the stimulation was quantifiable and assessed in milliampere (mA).
Interventions: The assessments were performed on the hands and feet by two raters. The PTT was identified as the level registered in milliampere (mA) at which the patients perceived a tingling sensation.
Results: The ICC values (0.94–0.99) were shown to be good for inter-rater reliability, as well as reliability between occasions. However an additional analysis with limits of agreement showed a high level of agreement for assessment of the hand but a moderate to low agreement for assessment of the foot where some bias was also identified. Clinical acceptable reliability: 3 1 mA for the hand and 3 5 mA for the foot are so far recommended for establishing real differences in clinical measures.
Conclusion: Hf/TENS shows an overall high reliability for assessing the PTT of the hand and moderate to low reliability for the foot. Additional research with exclusion of bias is needed to determine the reliability of assessing the foot.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Shumway-Cook A, Wollacott M. Motor control. Theory and practical applications. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1995: 7–97.
2.
Carey LM. Somatosensory loss after stroke. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med1995; 7: 51–91.
3.
Kusoffsky A, Wadell I, Nilsson Y. The relationship between sensory impairment and motor recovery in patients with hemiplegia. Scand J Rehabil Med1982; 14: 27–32.
4.
Kalra L, Crome P. The role of prognostic scores in targeting stroke rehabilitation in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc1992; 41: 396–400.
5.
Lundgren J, Flodström K, Sjogren K, Liljequist B, Fugl-Meyer AR. Site of brain lesion and functional capacity in rehabilitated hemiplegics. Scand J Rehabil Med1982; 14: 141–143.
6.
Pause M, Kunesch E, Binkofski F, Freund HJ. Sensimotor disturbance in lesions of the patients with lesions of the parietal cortex. Brain1989; 112: 1599–1625.
7.
Winward CE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Current practice and clinical relevance of somatosensory assessment after stroke. Clin Rehabil1999; 13: 48–55.
8.
Lincoln NB, Crow JL, Jackson JM, Adams SA, Hodgon P. The unreliability of sensory assessment. Clin Rehabil1991; 5: 273–282.
9.
Winward CT, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Somatosensory assessment after central nerve damage: the need for standardised clinical measures. Phys Ther Rev1999; 4: 21–28.
10.
Horch K, Hardy M, Jimenez S, Jabaley M. An automated tactile tester for evaluation of coetaneous sensibility. Am J Hand Surg1992; 5: 829–838.
11.
Weinstein S. From the Semmes-Weinsteins Monofilaments to the Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test. J Hand Ther1993; 7: 11–22.
12.
Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 1992.
13.
Dannenbuam RM, Jones LA. The assessment and treatment of patients who have sensory loss following cortical lesions. J Hand Ther1993; 2: 130–138.
14.
Northerman SLH. Measurement of the pain threshold determined by electrical stimulation and its clinical application Part 1. Neurology1966; 16: 1071–1086.
15.
Maresca M, Faccani G. The measurement of pain threshold in man by means of electrical stimuli: a critical appraisal. J Neurosurg1983; 27: 83–93.
16.
Friedli WG, Puhr P, Wiget W. Detection threshold for percoetaneous electrical stimuli: asymmetri with respect to handedness. J Neurol1987; 50: 870–876.
17.
Laitinen LV. Electrical sensimetry. Assessment of coetaneous sensibility with electrical stimulation. Clin Neurol Neurosurg1987; 1: 5–8.
18.
Tucker MA, Andrew MF, Ogle SJ, Davison JG. Age-associated change in pain threshold measured by transcutaneous neuronal electrical stimulation. Age Ageing1989; 18: 241–246.
19.
Conomy J, Barnes KL. Quantitative assessment of cutaneous sensory function in subject with neurologic disease. J Neurol1976; 30: 221–235.
20.
Ottosson D, Lundeberg T. Pain treatment by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. New York: Springer Verlag, 1988.
21.
Marchello L, Donadio V, Montagna P. The sympathetic skin response: a neurological perspective. Funct Neurol1996; 11: 283–299.
22.
Meador KJ, Ray PG, Day L, Ghelani H, Loring DW. Physiology of somatosensory perception. Cerebral lateralization and extinction. Neurology1998; 51: 721–727.
23.
Olausson H, Norrsell U, Göthner K, Wallin G. Directional sensibility for quantification of tactile dysfunction. Muscle Nerve1997; 11: 1414–1421.
24.
Haas M. Statistical methodology for reliability studies. J Manip Physiol Ther1991; 14: 119–132.
25.
Rankin G, Stokes M. Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 187–189.
