论文部分内容阅读
目的:采用0.01 cm2探头机械性测痛仪进行痛阈测量,与真实的静脉穿刺痛性质及VAS评分进行比较,验证其可用于量化刺痛阈值(Quantizing pricking pain threshold,QPT)的测量。方法:招募1064名健康学生,经纳入排除标准筛选,选取1041名受试者,选择右腕关节处尺骨桡骨中点作为测痛点,采用0.01 cm2探头测痛仪进行痛阈测量,评价其疼痛性质。所有受试者在右肘静脉处进行静脉穿刺,并对其进行VAS评分。然后比对两种刺激性质的一致性,并将痛阈值与VAS进行相关分析,计算痛阈值正常参考值范围。结果:1030名(98.9%)受试者反映0.01cm2探头痛阈(以下内容以QPT表示)测量产生的痛感与真实的针刺痛性质一致。QPT越大,受试者VAS评分越低,呈显著负相关,(r=-0.265,P<0.001)。95%正常参考值范围:女性7.56~54.06 kg/cm2,男性11.61~63.23 kg/cm2。结论:0.01 cm2探头机械性痛阈测量可以准确地、快捷地定量测试针刺痛。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the true nature of venous puncture pain and VAS score with 0.01 cm2 probe mechanical pain detector to evaluate the Quantizing prick pain threshold (QPT). Methods: A total of 1064 healthy students were enrolled and included in the exclusion criteria screening. 1041 subjects were selected. The midpoint of the ulna and radius of the right wrist joint was selected as the measurement point of pain. The pain threshold was measured by 0.01 cm2 probe. All subjects underwent venipuncture at the right elbow vein and were VAS scored. Then compare the consistency of the two stimulus properties, and pain threshold and VAS correlation analysis, the calculation of pain threshold normal reference range. RESULTS: A total of 1030 patients (98.9%) responded to the 0.01 cm 2 probe pain threshold (the following is expressed in QPT). The measured pain was consistent with true acupuncture pain characteristics. The larger the QPT, the lower the VAS score of the subjects, there was a significant negative correlation (r = -0.265, P <0.001). 95% of the normal reference range: female 7.56 ~ 54.06 kg / cm2, male 11.61 ~ 63.23 kg / cm2. Conclusion: 0.01 cm2 probe mechanical pain threshold measurement can accurately and quickly quantitative test acupuncture pain.