The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Pathway pain sensory evaluation system

Manufactured by Medoc
Sourced in Israel

The PATHWAY Pain & Sensory Evaluation System is a lab equipment designed to assess pain and sensory responses. It provides a standardized method for evaluating sensory thresholds and pain perception.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

Lab products found in correlation

8 protocols using pathway pain sensory evaluation system

1

Intraoral Thermal Sensory Evaluation Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
PATHWAY Pain & Sensory Evaluation System (Medoc, Israel) with an
intraoral thermode having a round active contact surface (diameter =
6 mm) was used for all thermal tests, which were performed in the sequence:
CDT-WDT-CPT-HPT. For each test, the intraoral thermode was held in place by
the examiner, with a baseline temperature of 32 °C, and temperature
change rate of 1 °C/s for CDT and WDT; for CPT and HPT, the rate of
temperature change from baseline was 1.5 °C/s; the rate of return to
baseline was 8 °C/s. Cut-off temperatures for thermal tests were 0
°C and 54 °C. Participants were instructed to hold a
response unit and press its button once a particular sensation (coolness,
warmth, cold pain, heat pain) was first perceived, ending the trial.
Detection thresholds were calculated as the temperature difference from
baseline; pain thresholds were determined from the absolute temperature
reached. Each test included three measurements; the average of the three
measurements was used as threshold.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Heat Pain Threshold and Tolerance Measurement

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Heat thermal stimuli were delivered using a computer-controlled Medoc PATHWAY Pain & Sensory Evaluation System. The position of the thermode was moved between trials to avoid sensitization and/or habituation of cutaneous nociceptors. Heat pain threshold and tolerance were assessed on both the index knee (i.e. the most painful knee) and ipsilateral ventral forearm. Specifically, three sites were assessed across three trials around the joint line of the index knee (i.e., where the femur and tibia meet). The sites were: 1) the medial joint line which was located immediately medial to the patella, 2) the area above the patella which was medially and above the joint line, and 3) the area below the patella which was medially and below the joint line. We used the ascending method of limits with a 16×16mm Advanced Thermal Stimulator (Medoc, Israel). Heat pain threshold was assessed first. For each trial, the thermode would start at a baseline temperature of 32°C and increase at a rate of 0.5°C/second until the participant responded by pressing a button as soon as the sensation “first became painful.” Subsequently, heat pain tolerance was assessed.. Participants were instructed to press the button when they “no longer felt able to tolerate the pain.” For both the heat pain threshold and tolerance procedures, each test was repeated 3 times and the mean temperature was used for analysis.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Comprehensive Assessment of Fibromyalgia Patients

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
FM patients completed the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) [29 (link)] (German version: Flor et al. [30 (link)]), the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-G) [31 (link)], and the Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ) [32 ]. In patients and controls, the presence of depression symptoms was assessed using the CES-D [33 ] (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; German version: ADS, Hautzinger and Bailer [34 ]). Additionally, the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) [27 (link)] was assessed. Table 1 presents the demographic, psychometric, and clinical data for FM patients and HC. The structured clinical interview SKID-I [28 ] was conducted in all participants in order to rule out any acute mental illness.
Individual heat pain thresholds were determined using a 3 × 3 cm contact thermode (PATHWAY Pain & Sensory Evaluation System, Medoc Ltd. Advanced Medical System, Israel) and the software MEDOC Main Station 6.3. Ascending thermal stimulation cycles were presented on the participants’ left thenar and the mean value of the last three out of five consecutive thresholds was calculated. For heat pain threshold, subjects were asked to stop the stimulation via a mouse button when they started perceiving the stimulus as just painful.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Quantifying Thermal Pain Thresholds

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The TPT were measured using a 3 × 3 cm (9 cm 2 ) contact thermode on the skin above the right side of the descending part of m. trapezius using the PATHWAY pain & sensory evaluation system (Medoc Advanced Medical Systems, Israel). TPT were measured using the methods of limits. Each stimulus series began with ascended and descended in ramps starting from a baseline temperature of 32 °C and gradually increasing and decreasing temperature at a rate of 1 °C/s. Cold pain thresholds (CPT) and heat pain thresholds (HPT) were assessed by the participants with the button press as soon as the thermal sensation first became painful. The measurements were repeated three times, within the temperature range of 0-55 °C and the average was used for analysis in accordance with the QST protocol described by the DFNS [34] .
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Heat Pain Threshold Index Measurement

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Heat Pain Threshold (HPT) Index was derived using a computer-controlled Medoc PATHWAY Pain & Sensory Evaluation System with a 16 Å∼16 mm Advanced Thermal stimulator applied to the medial tibiofemoral joint line and femoral condyle of the most painful knee and ipsilateral ventral forearm. Thermode temperature increased from 32°C at 0.5°C/second intervals until the participant pressed a button indicating the onset of pain. An average of 3 HPT trials was used as an index for analysis.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Contact Heat-Evoked Potentials Assessment

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
A contact heat stimulator (PATHWAY Pain & Sensory Evaluation System, Medoc,
Ramat Yishay, Israel) was used to deliver contact heat stimuli from a baseline
temperature of 35°C to a peak temperature of 52°C with a heating rate
of 70°C/s and a cooling rate of 40°C/s. For each dermatome, we first
assessed heat perception and pain thresholds within 2 consecutive trials. For
the CHEPs recording, scalp recording sites were prepared with Nuprep (D.O.
Weaver & Co, Aurora, CO) and alcohol. Three 9-mm Ag/AgCl surface disk
electrodes were positioned according to the international 10-20 system with the
active electrode at the Cz position and referenced to linked earlobes
(A1–A2); impedances were kept <5 kΩ. Ten to 15 contact heat
stimuli were applied (interstimulus interval 8–12 seconds). Two seconds
after each stimulus, an audio cue appeared, and patients rated their perceived
intensity according to a numeric rating scale. All signals were sampled from 100
milliseconds before the trigger to 1,500 milliseconds after the trigger at a
sampling rate of 2,000 Hz with a preamplifier (20,000× bandpass filter
= 0.25–300 Hz; ALEA Solutions, Switzerland). Data were recorded in a
LabView-based program (V1.43 CHEP; ALEA Solutions, Zurich, Switzerland) with a
100-millisecond period before the trigger and 1-second posttrigger period. Raw
data were bandpass filtered from 0.5 to 30 Hz.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Thermal Quantitative Sensory Testing in SCI

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Thermal QST was performed at the right L2 dermatome (mid‐thigh) for all SCI subjects and 13 HC who were able to participate in the QST session. Cold detection threshold (CDT), cold pain threshold (CPT), warm detection threshold (WDT) and heat pain threshold (HPT) measurements were performed with the PATHWAY Pain & Sensory Evaluation system (Medoc Ltd., Ramat Yishai, Israel) using a 3 cm × 3 cm square thermode attached. Each trial began with a baseline temperature of the thermode at 32°C and decreased (for CDT/CPT) and increased (for WDT/HPT) at a rate of 1°C per second. To determine each threshold value, subjects were required to press the response unit, as they perceived a change in temperature (WDT/CDT) or at the beginning of pain sensation (CPT/HPT). Average thermal and pain thresholds were calculated after presenting three trials of individual stimuli. Safety temperatures for CPT and HPT were set at 0°C and 50°C, respectively. During the QST procedure, subjects were blinded from the operator screen.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Individualized Heat Pain Threshold and Tolerance Measurement

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Experimental heat pain was induced using a 3x3cm contact thermode (PATHWAY Pain & Sensory Evaluation System, Medoc ltd. Advanced Medical System, Israel) on the participants’ left thenar. During the experiment, the device was located in the control room and bridged to the scanner. Individual heat pain threshold and tolerance were determined using MEDOC Main Station 6.3. Ascending thermal stimulation cycles were presented and the mean value of the last three out of five consecutive threshold ratings was calculated. For pain threshold, subjects were asked to stop the stimulation via a mouse button when they started perceiving the stimulus as just painful, for pain tolerance they stopped at the maximum bearable heat. We calculated the specific stimulation intensity by building the mean between pain threshold and pain tolerance and adjusting the resulting intensity by running a Matlab routine. In a series of consecutive adjustment steps, a tonic heat stimulus of 27 s (ramp: 0.15 s per °C) was presented, followed by a VAS (see section ‘Rating procedure’) for intensity and unpleasantness ratings. Heat levels of the subsequent trials were adapted based on the respective intensity ratings until two consecutive ratings were in a range between 60 and 70. The adjusted stimulation intensity was used for both, the self-controlled and the computer controlled condition.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!