Low back pain (LBP) is the most common cause of chronic pain. Numerous clinical scales are available for evaluating pain, but their objective criteria in the management of LBP patients remain unclear. This study aimed to determine an objective cutoff value for a change in the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (ΔPI-NRS) three months after LBP treatment. Its utility was compared with changes in six commonly used clinical scales in LBP patients: Pain Disability Assessment Scale (PDAS), Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEC), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), EuroQoL 5 Dimension (EQ5D), and Locomo 25. We included 161 LBP patients treated in two representative pain management centers. Patients were partitioned into two groups based on patient's global impression of change (PGIC) three months after treatment: satisfied (PGIC = 1, 2) and unsatisfied (3-7). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to explore relevant scales in distinguishing the two groups. We found ΔPI-NRS to be most closely associated with PGIC status regardless of pre-treatment pain intensity, followed by ΔEQ5D, ΔPDAS, ΔPSEC, and ΔPCS. The ΔPI-NRS cutoff value for distinguishing the PGIC status was determined by ROC analysis to be 1.3-1.8 depending on pre-treatment PI-NRS, which was rounded up to ΔPI-NRS = 2 for general use. Spearman's correlation coefficient revealed close relationships between ΔPI-NRS and the six other clinical scales. Therefore, we determined cutoff values of these scales in distinguishing the status of ΔPI-NRS�2 vs. ΔPI-NRS<2 to be as follows: ΔPDAS, 6.71; ΔPSEC, 6.48; ΔPCS, 6.48; ΔAIS, 1.91; ΔEQ5D, 0.08; and ΔLocomo 25, 9.31. These can be used as definitive indicator of therapeutic outcome in the management of chronic LBP patients.

In recent years, several published articles have shown that quantitative sensory testing (QST) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) are useful in the analysis of neck/shoulder and low back pain. A valid reference for normal PPT values might be helpful for the clinical diagnosis of abnormal tenderness or muscle pain. However, there have been no reliable references for PPT values of neck/shoulder and back pain because the data vary depending on the devices used, the measurement units, and the area examined. In this article, we review previously published PPT articles on neck/shoulder and low back pain, discuss the measurement properties of PPT, and summarize the current data on PPT values in patients with chronic pain and healthy volunteers. We also reveal previous issues related to PPT evaluation and discuss the future of PPT assessment for widespread use in general clinics. We outline QST and PPT measurements and what kinds of perceptions can be quantified with the PPT. Ninety-seven articles were selected in the present review, in which we focused on the normative values and abnormal values in volunteers/patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. We conducted our search of articles using PubMed and Medline, a medical database. We used a combination of “Pressure pain threshold” and “Neck shoulder pain” or “Back pain” as search terms and searched articles from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2022. From the data extracted, we revealed the PPT values in healthy control subjects and patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. This database could serve as a benchmark for future research with pressure algometers for the wide use of PPT assessment in clinics.

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is useful when analysing musculoskeletal pain disorders. A handheld algometer is most commonly used for pressure pain threshold (PPT) tests. However, reference intervals for PPTs are not elucidated. We assessed reference intervals of PPTs for QST in 158 healthy adult Japanese (73 females, 85 males) with no history of musculoskeletal or neurological problems. A handheld algometer was used to record PPT at five different assessment sites on the body: lumbar paravertebral muscle (PVM), musculus gluteus maximus (MGM), quadriceps (QC), tibialis anterior muscle (TA), and anterior talofibular ligament (TL). Multiple regression analysis (MRA) was performed to explore sources of variation of PPT according to sex, age, body mass index (BMI), UCLA Activity Level Rating (ALR), and Tegner Activity Score. Reference intervals were determined parametrically by Gaussian transformation of PPT values using the two-parameter Box-Cox formula. MRA results revealed that age was significantly associated with PPT-PVM in males and with PPT-PVM and PPT-MGM in females. In females, BMI showed significant positive correlation with PPT-TL, and ALR reflecting daily activities also showed significant positive association with PPT-TA and PPT-TL. Site-specific reference intervals of PPTs for Japanese are of practical relevance in fields of pain research using a handheld algometer.

We organized Yamaguchi Pain Center in Yamaguchi university hospital to treat chronic pain patients. We are performing multidisciplinary therapy and treating the patients in hospital for 3-4 weeks. In this study we examined whether there is a difference between elderly and young middle-age suffering from chronic pain. As a result, young middle-aged people were more painful than older people. And Eldelry people did not see psychological improvement of pain. At present it is difficult to change the psychological aspect the pain of elderly people during hospitalization. It is necessary to be able to receive support in the area after other hospital.