• Peter Siao and Didier P Cros.
• Harvard Medical School, Department of Neurology, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. psiao@partners.org
• Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2003 May 1;14(2):261-86.

AbstractQuantitative sensory testing is a reliable way of assessing large and small sensory nerve fiber function. Sensory deficits may be quantified and the data used in parametric statistical analysis in research studies and drug trials. It is an important addition to the neurophysiologic armamentarium, because conventional sensory nerve conduction tests only the large fibers. QST is a psychophysical test and lacks the objectivity of NCS. The results are subject to changes owing to distraction, boredom, mental fatigue, drowsiness, or confusion. When patients are consciously or unconsciously biased toward an abnormal QST result, no psychophysical testing can reliably distinguish these patients from those with organic disease. QST tests the integrity of the entire sensory neuraxis and is of no localizing value. Dysfunction of the peripheral nerves or central nervous system may give rise to abnormalities in QST. As is true for other neurophysiologic tests, QST results should always be interpreted in light of the patient's clinical presentation. Quantitative sensory testing has been shown to be reasonably reproducible over a period of days or weeks in normal subjects. Because longitudinal QST studies of patients in drug trials are usually performed over a period of several months to a few years, reproducibility studies on the placebo-control group should be included. For individual patients, more studies are needed to determine the maximum allowable difference between two QSTs that can be attributed to experimental error. The reproducibility of thermal thresholds may not be as good as that of vibration threshold. Different commercially available QST instruments have different specifications (thermode size, stimulus characteristics), testing protocols, algorithms, and normal values. Only QST instruments and their corresponding methodologies that have been shown to be reproducible should be used for research and patient care. The data in the literature do not allow conclusions regarding the superiority of any QST instruments. The future of QST is promising; however, many factors can affect QST results. As is true for other neurophysiologic tests, QST is susceptible to many extraneous factors and to misuse when not properly interpreted by the clinician.

17 keywords...

hide…