High concurrent validity between digital and analogue algometers to measure pressure pain thresholds in healthy participants and people with migraine: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) are commonly assessed to quantify mechanical sensitivity in various conditions, including migraine. Digital and analogue algometers are used, but the concurrent validity between these algometers is unknown. Therefore, we assessed the concurrent validity between a digital and analogue algometer to determine PPTs in healthy participants and people with migraine. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy participants and twenty-nine people with migraine participated in the study. PPTs were measured interictally and bilaterally at the cephalic region (temporal muscle, C1 paraspinal muscles, and trapezius muscle) and extra-cephalic region (extensor carpi radialis muscle and tibialis anterior muscle). PPTs were first determined with a digital algometer, followed by an analogue algometer. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3.1) and limits of agreement were calculated to quantify concurrent validity. RESULTS: The concurrent validity between algometers in both groups was moderate to excellent (ICC3.1 ranged from 0.82 to 0.99, with 95%CI: 0.65 to 0.99). Although PPTs measured with the analogue algometer were higher at most locations in both groups (p < 0.05), the mean differences between both devices were less than 18.3 kPa. The variation in methods, such as a hand-held switch (digital algometer) versus verbal commands (analogue algometer) to indicate when the threshold was reached, may explain these differences in scores. The limits of agreement varied per location and between healthy participants and people with migraine. CONCLUSION: The concurrent validity between the digital and analogue algometer is excellent in healthy participants and moderate in people with migraine. Both types of algometer are well-suited for research and clinical practice but are not exchangeable within a study or patient follow-up.

Fluctuations in local and widespread mechanical sensitivity throughout the migraine cycle: a prospective longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: People with migraine have localised (i.e., cephalic) mechanical sensitivity. There is uncertainty regarding widespread (i.e., extra-cephalic) mechanical sensitivity and variations in mechanical sensitivity throughout the migraine cycle. Therefore, this study aimed (1) to comprehensively assess mechanical sensitivity in both cephalic and extra-cephalic regions during the preictal, ictal, postictal and interictal phases; and (2) to compare these findings with mechanical sensitivity at corresponding time-points and locations in healthy participants. METHODS: According to sample size calculations, 19 people with migraine and 19 matched healthy volunteers participated in a prospective longitudinal study. Pressure pain thresholds were evaluated in three cephalic regions (temporalis, upper trapezius and C1 paraspinal muscles) and two extra-cephalic regions (extensor carpi radialis and tibialis anterior muscle) with a digital algometer during the four phases of the migraine cycle in people with migraine and at corresponding intervals and locations in healthy participants. Linear mixed model analyses with a random intercept were used. RESULTS: People with migraine had increased mechanical sensitivity in cephalic and extra-cephalic regions in all phases of the migraine cycle compared to healthy participants. Furthermore, this mechanical sensitivity was more severe in the preictal, ictal and postictal phase compared to the interictal phase in cephalic and extra-cephalic regions. CONCLUSION: People with migraine have localised as well as widespread mechanical sensitivity compared to healthy participants. This sensitivity is even more pronounced immediately before, during and after a migraine attack.