
==== Front
Cureus
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus Palo Alto (CA)

10.7759/cureus.66350
Pain Management
Healthcare Technology
Therapeutics
Intra-rater and Inter-rater Reliability of the Commander Pressure Algometer in Greek Patients With Chronic Neck Pain
Muacevic Alexander
Adler John R
Skordis Charalampos 1
Liaskou Christina 1
Papagiakoumou Evangelia 1
Sotiropoulos Spyridon 1
Plavoukou Theodora 1
Karakasidou Palina 1
Georgoudis George 1
1 Physiotherapy Department, University of West Attica (UNIWA), Athens, GRC
George Georgoudis ggeorge@uniwa.gr
7 8 2024
8 2024
16 8 e6635023 4 2024
Copyright © 2024, Skordis et al.
2024
Skordis et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This article is available from https://www.cureus.com/articles/237871-intra-rater-and-inter-rater-reliability-of-the-commander-pressure-algometer-in-greek-patients-with-chronic-neck-pain
Introduction

Non-specific chronic neck pain (NSCNP) is a musculoskeletal disorder that affects 45%-54% of the general population. There is a strong correlation between patient-reported pain and mechanical pain pressure threshold (PPT) measured with an algometer.

Purpose

This study aims to investigate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Commander algometer in Greek NSCNP patients, in an urban primary care setting.

Methods

Thirty-three patients (22 women and 11 men) suffering from NSCNP (>3 months), the majority (42.4%) between the ages of 50 years and 59 years and overweight, were measured bilaterally both at the neck (mastoid, trapezius head-insertion and mid-portion, C5-C6 facet, insertion of levator scapula) and at the control areas (mid-deltoid and tibialis anterior) using the Commander algometer. Measurements were taken twice over a span of six days, by two raters, in a primary care setting. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistics were used as measures of reliability (p = 0.05).

Results

Intra-rater reliability was “moderate to good” for both raters. ICC values for PPT at the seven bilaterally measured sites varied between 0.67 and 0.86 for the first rater (p ≤ 0.001) and 0.64 and 0.82 for the second rater (p ≤ 0.003). The inter-rater reliability was “moderate to excellent” (ICC = 0.68-0.92) in the first measurement (T1) and “moderate to good” (ICC = 0.68 to 0.89) in the second measurement (T2).

Conclusion

This study supports the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Commander algometer in detecting reliably the mechanical PPT, in Greek NSCNP patients, as measured according to the procedures and methodology followed throughout this study.

commander
non-specific chronic neck pain
greek patients
inter-rater reliability
intra-rater reliability
pressure algometer
pressure pain threshold (ppt)
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Non-specific chronic neck pain (NSCNP) or mechanical neck pain are the most common terms used to define pain in the lateral and posterior neck [1]. It is a musculoskeletal disorder affecting 45%-54% of the general population at least once in their lives [2]. A strong correlation between the reported pain and the level of measured mechanical sensitivity has been reported [3,4]. Hyperalgesia can occasionally be found in anatomical regions distant from the local site of injury [3], which is an indicator of central sensitization [5]. According to a systematic review and meta-analysis, 79% of the included studies selected the tibialis anterior muscle as a remote algometric site, assessing central pain sensitization [5].

A pressure algometer is an instrument used to measure sensitivity to pain through the application of pressure [6]. The pressure algometer’s ability to measure sensitivity can contribute to the evaluation of treatment results, the recognition of myofascial trigger points (MTrPs), and the quantification of the mechanical pain pressure threshold (PPT) [7].

The Commander pressure algometer is a fairly new but popular clinical practice device. However, a limited number of accessible studies were found to use this algometer for research [8-11], out of which, only one examined the reliability of PPT measurements in 100 healthy young adults. It was applied on the supraspinatus tendon, the anterior talofibular ligament, and the extensor digitorum communis muscle belly of the dominant side. High intra-rater reliability (Cronbach’s alpha values range > 0.85) was found on these sites. On the contrary, the inter-rater reliability was poor to moderate (ICC < 0.561) [9].

No published research results could be found in the literature regarding the reliability of the Commander algometer in NSCNP patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Commander algometer in Greek patients with chronic neck pain.

Materials and methods

Study design

This study was a single-group reliability study with repeated measurements. For further investigation of the reproducibility and validity of the algometer measurements, two independent raters measured the mechanical sensitivity in a group of NSCNP patients. Measurements were carried out in two instances over a span of six days.

This study was performed at the “Mikis Theodorakis” Multipurpose Center for Cultural, Sports and Social Activities of Ilion in Athens, Greece, in collaboration with the Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Research Lab of the University of West Attica (UNIWA) in Athens from January 2023 to August 2023. All measurements were taken by two independent and experienced pressure-algometry physiotherapists. The study has been submitted and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of West Attica (UNIWA), with protocol number 103276/18-12-2020.

Participants

Thirty-three patients (N = 22 women) suffering from NSCNP (≥3 months), aged 18-70, were included. The exclusion criteria were neck pain related to neurological disorders, systematic inflammatory disease or rheumatic diseases, or another known pathological cause, previous surgery, or any kind of trauma at least two years ago. Patients receiving other treatments during the study were also excluded.

Procedure

Prior to algometry measurements, four questionnaires were administered to the patients. Because of their neck pain and symptom reported variability [12,13], these questionnaires aimed at assessing their perceived change in disability and pain at different time points [14], depressive and anxiety symptoms [15], their multidimensional aspects of pain [16], and their kinesiophobia [17]. Demographic data and usage of other medications were also recorded.

The measurements were carried out in the morning, from 09:30 to 12:30 [7], in a stable temperature environment (25°C) and the same office. These factors were maintained as constant as possible during the measurements [4].

Several specific sites were selected for the measurements since these were the most popular points of interest in NSCNP. The measurement sites selected were the upper trapezius at the point between the midline and the lateral border of the acromion [18], the suboccipital muscles at the mastoid process, and the bladder 10 (BL 10) acupoint located at the end of the posterior neck hairline and approximately 5 cm lateral to the midline of trapezius muscle [19,20], the zygapophyseal joint between C5-C6 intervertebral space, the tibialis anterior muscle (ST 36) acupoint [4,21], as a remote site (as the first control area), indicator of central sensitization [5], the middle part of the deltoid muscle (1-2 cm below the acromion), as the second control area and the levator scapula muscle (2 cm above its epiphysis, at the upper medial corner of the scapula) [18] (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Representation of the measured algometric sites

The sites were A) upper trapezius, B) mastoid process, C) bladder 10 (BL 10), D) C5-C6 zygapophyseal joint, E) tibialis anterior, F) deltoid, G) levator scapula.

Participants were placed in the prone position [7] for all measurements. The first measurement was discarded since it was considered a trial [22]. The average of the two consecutive measurements (second and third) was then calculated and recorded as the final value.

The tip of the algometer was perpendicularly applied to the body surface and the rate of pressure was constantly kept at 1 kg/cm2 per second, using the visual feedback of the equipment [23,24].

Standardized procedures were followed at all times during the measurements. Specifically, one of the raters, randomly selected, marked all the measurement sites according to the preset list of points and the other measured the patient with the algometer for the first time. After about 20 minutes, which has already been demonstrated to be adequate [22], the second rater performed the same measurements choosing randomly from the measuring points. The whole procedure was repeated after six days [18,25], at the same setting, with the same raters for the same measuring sites but in random order. The expressions the examiners used to inform the patients were standardized without further explanations. The procedures were completed within the same timeframe for each patient and the raters had no access to the data of the patients. The data were transferred to data spreadsheets blindly, and an independent and blind-to-the-procedure statistician did the analyses.

Instruments

Pressure Algometer

The pressure algometer (Commander® algometer, JTECH Medical, Midvale, Utah) was used in all measurements. This particular model is a handheld algometer with two different surface heads (0.5 cm2, 1 cm2), a flat surface (Flat Pad), and a fingertip adapter. The maximum input force reaches 111 N, while the wireless radio frequency (RF) reaches 2.4 GHz. The surface head used was that of one square centimeter (1 cm2) and the unit of measurement for the threshold value was selected to be the kilogram per square centimeter (kg/cm2).

Global Perceived Effect

The global perceived effect (GPE) scale rates the patients' perceived change in different domains such as pain and disability. It asks the patient to rate how much their condition has worsened or improved compared to another predetermined point in time [14]. It is a numerical scale that consists of only one question with five possible answers. The GPE scale has shown excellent test-retest reliability with ICC values of 0.90-0.99 [26].

TAMPA Scale Kinesiophobia

The TAMPA scale kinesiophobia (TSK) assesses the fear associated with movement (kinesiophobia) in patients with musculoskeletal pain. The original scale consists of 17 questions [27], each of which is rated on a scale of 1 to 4 points (1 equals “strongly disagree” and 4 equals “strongly agree”). Thus, the final score can range from 17 to 68 points, where 17 corresponds to "no kinesiophobia", whereas 68 to "severe kinesiophobia" [28]. The Greek version was selected for this study since it has shown adequate validity and reliability [29,30].

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was created to assess symptoms of depression and anxiety in patients [31]. The HADS scale consists of 14 questions, 7 assess anxiety symptoms and 7 assess depression symptoms, each of which is rated on a scale of 0 to 3 points. The Greek version of the HADS scale has been proven to have high test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.944) and high validity [32].

Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire

The short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SFMPQ) expresses perceived pain in the sensory and affective dimensions [33]. It is comprised of 15 descriptive adjectives of the pain sensation 11 of which concern sensory and 4 affective aspects. The patient rates each description on a four-point Likert-type intensity scale ranging from 0 to 3: 0 equals none and 3 equals severe pain [34,35]. The visual analog scale (VAS) and the present pain intensity (PPI) scale are included in the SFMPQ. The VAS scale is a self-report pain measurement scale, where the intensity of the present pain is rated on a scale of 0 to 10. PPI is a six-point rating scale, according to which the patient selects the answer that best describes the pain sensation perceived at the moment, on a scale of 0 to 5 [35]. The total pain score is calculated by the sum of all the intensity values. The Greek version of the short-form McGill pain questionnaire (GR-SFMPQ) whose validity, reliability, and sensitivity are demonstrated, is used throughout this study [35].

Statistical analysis

Quantitative variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD). Qualitative variables were expressed as absolute and relative frequencies. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values and their 95% confidence intervals were used between raters and between time points (T1/T2). The ICC is a value between 0 and 1, where values below 0.50 indicate poor reliability, between 0.50 and 0.75 moderate reliability, between 0.75 and 0.90 good reliability, while any value above 0.90 indicates excellent reliability [36]. Power analysis was conducted for the determination of the sample size and it was found that to detect an ICC > 0.90 with 80% power, a sample of 33 participants is needed. Scores in SFMPQ, VAS, PPI, HADS, GPE, and TSK scales were compared between T1 and T2 using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and levels of kinesiophobia were compared between T1 and T2 using the McNemar test. Moreover, the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable change (MDC) were computed as a measure of absolute agreement expressed in real units of measurement and as the smallest change that can be interpreted as a real difference respectively. All reported p values are two-tailed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26 (Released 2019; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States).

Results

The sample consisted of 33 patients (66.7% women), whose characteristics are presented in Table 1. Most patients (42.4%) were between 50 and 59 years old and overweight. University alumni made up 30.3% of the sample, while 39.4% had completed secondary educational levels. Employees in the public sector were 30.3% of the sample and 69.7% were married. Among the participants 84.8% had pain symptoms for more than two years, 63.4% were under medication and 69.7% suffered from another disease.

Table 1 Sample characteristics

 	N (%)	
Sex	 	
 	Men	11 (33.3)	
 	Women	22 (66.7)	
Age (years)	 	
 	18-29	1 (3)	
 	30-39	2 (6.1)	
 	40-49	5 (15.2)	
 	50-59	14 (42.4)	
 	60-69	11 (33.3)	
BMI (kg/ m2), mean (SD)	27.1 (4.5)	
BMI categories	 	
 	Normal	11 (33.3)	
 	Overweight	14 (42.4)	
 	Obese	8 (24.2)	
Educational level	 	
 	Primary	1 (3)	
 	Secondary	13 (39.4)	
 	Two-year college	6 (18.2)	
 	University	10 (30.3)	
 	MSc/PhD holder	3 (9.1)	
Work status	 	
 	Unemployed	7 (21.2)	
 	Employee in the public sector	10 (30.3)	
 	Freelancer	1 (3)	
 	Employee in the private sector	6 (18.2)	
 	Pensioner	9 (27.3)	
Family status	 	
 	Unmarried	8 (24.2)	
 	Divorced	2 (6.1)	
 	Married	23 (69.7)	
Symptom duration (months)	 	
 	03-Jun	1 (3)	
 	06-Dec	2 (6.1)	
 	Dec-24	2 (6.1)	
 	>24	28 (84.8)	
Medication	21 (63.4)	
Other disease	23 (69.7)	

Participants' scores on the SFMPQ scales and their depression scores were significantly greater at T2 (Table 2). On the contrary, participants’ anxiety score and their scores in VAS, PPI, GPE, and TSK scales were similar in T1 and T2. High levels of kinesiophobia (i.e., TSK score ≥ 37) expressed 36.4% (N = 12) of the sample at T1 and 39.4% (N = 13) at T2; p = 1.000.

Table 2 Participants’ scores in McGill, VAS, PPI, HADS, GPE, and TSK scales at T1 and T2

* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01

VAS: visual analog scale; PPI: present pain intensity; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; GPE: global perceived effect; TSK: TAMPA scale kinesiophobia

 	T1	T2	 	
 	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	P Wilcoxon sign test	
Sensory score	10.36	5.39	13.73	6.45	0.015*	
Affective score	3.67	3.06	5.15	2.99	0.007**	
Total McGill score	14.03	7.86	18.88	8.71	0.006**	
Depression scale (HADS)	9.06	1.73	9.94	1.92	0.025*	
Anxiety scale (HADS)	10.94	2.34	10.94	1.84	0.848	
VAS score	5.09	1.72	5.00	2.11	0.817	
PPI score	1.85	0.80	1.94	0.75	0.592	
GPE score	3.09	0.52	2.97	0.73	0.405	
TSK score	36.00	7.10	35.91	7.26	0.939	

ICC values for the between measurements agreement (intra-rater) are presented in Table 3, for each rater separately. More analytically, in both raters, there were significant values detected between T1 and T2 measurements in all areas. More specifically, the ICC values for the first rater ranged from 0.67 to 0.86, and for the second rater ranged from 0.64 to 0.82.

Table 3 Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for the between measurements agreement, for each rater separately (intra-rater reliability)

** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001

ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; SEM: standard error of measurement; MDC: minimal detectable change

 	T1 vs T2 measurement	 	 	
 	ICC (95% CI)	P	SEM	MDC	
Rater 1	 	 	 	 	
Mastoid process (left)	0.81 (0.63-0.91)	<0.001***	0.85	2.35	
Mastoid process (right)	0.67 (0.32-0.84)	0.001***	1.01	2.81	
Bladder 10 (left)	0.70 (0.40-0.85)	<0.001***	1.05	2.92	
Bladder 10 (right)	0.72 (0.43-0.86)	<0.001***	0.86	2.37	
Zygapophyseal joint (left)	0.69 (0.36-0.84)	0.001***	1.18	3.27	
Zygapophyseal joint (right)	0.72 (0.43-0.86)	<0.001***	0.97	2.70	
Upper trapezius (left)	0.84 (0.67-0.92)	<0.001***	0.69	1.92	
Upper trapezius (right)	0.78 (0.55-0.89)	<0.001***	0.87	2.42	
Levator scapulae (left)	0.75 (0.48-0.87)	<0.001***	1.06	2.95	
Levator scapulae (right)	0.75 (0.50-0.88)	<0.001***	1.10	3.05	
Deltoid (left)	0.80 (0.60-0.90)	<0.001***	0.97	2.69	
Deltoid (right)	0.83 (0.65-0.91)	<0.001***	0.94	2.61	
Tibialis anterior (left)	0.80 (0.60-0.90)	<0.001***	1.06	2.95	
Tibialis anterior (right)	0.86 (0.73-0.93)	<0.001***	0.90	2.48	
Rater 2	 	 	 	 	
Mastoid process (left)	0.77 (0.54-0.89)	<0.001***	0.74	2.06	
Mastoid process (right)	0.67 (0.33-0.84)	0.001***	0.78	2.16	
Urinary bladder (left)	0.75 (0.49-0.88)	<0.001***	0.64	1.77	
Urinary bladder (right)	0.74 (0.48-0.87)	<0.001***	0.66	1.84	
Zygapophyseal joint (left)	0.70 (0.39-0.85)	<0.001***	0.86	2.38	
Zygapophyseal joint (right)	0.67 (0.33-0.84)	0.001***	0.89	2.46	
Upper trapezius (left)	0.64 (0.27-0.82)	0.003**	1.08	2.99	
Upper trapezius (right)	0.82 (0.63-0.91)	<0.001***	0.69	1.90	
Levator scapulae (left)	0.75 (0.50-0.88)	<0.001***	1.11	3.09	
Levator scapulae (right)	0.74 (0.48-0.87)	<0.001***	0.92	2.56	
Deltoid (left)	0.71 (0.42-0.86)	<0.001***	0.88	2.44	
Deltoid (right)	0.77 (0.54-0.89)	<0.001***	0.74	2.05	
Tibialis anterior (left)	0.74 (0.48-0.87)	<0.001***	1.06	2.95	
Tibialis anterior (right)	0.72 (0.44-0.86)	<0.001***	1.00	2.78	

ICC values for between raters’ agreement (inter-rater) are presented in Table 4. Significant agreement was found between the two raters at both time points Τ1 and T2. More specifically, the ICC values in T1 ranged from 0.68 to 0.92, and in T2 ranged from 0.68 to 0.89. 

Table 4 Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for the between raters’ agreement, for each measurement separately (inter-rater reliability)

*** p ≤ 0.001

ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; SEM: standard error of measurement; MDC: minimal detectable change

 	T1	 	 	T2	 	 	
 	ICC (95% CI)	P	SEM	MDC	ICC (95% CI)	P	SEM	MDC	
Mastoid process (left)	0.92 (0.84-0.96)	<0.001***	0.49	1.35	0.89 (0.77-0.94)	<0.001***	0.60	1.66	
Mastoid process (right)	0.92 (0.83-0.96)	<0.001***	0.43	1.20	0.84 (0.67-0.92)	<0.001***	0.65	1.79	
Bladder 10 (left)	0.91 (0.82-0.96)	<0.001***	0.49	1.35	0.89 (0.77-0.94)	<0.001***	0.55	1.51	
Bladder 10 (right)	0.88 (0.75-0.94)	<0.001***	0.51	1.42	0.84 (0.67-0.92)	<0.001***	0.58	1.62	
Zygapophyseal joint (left)	0.91 (0.82-0.96)	<0.001***	0.56	1.56	0.81 (0.61-0.91)	<0.001***	0.81	2.24	
Zygapophyseal joint (right)	0.87 (0.73-0.93)	<0.001***	0.60	1.68	0.74 (0.47-0.87)	<0.001***	0.88	2.43	
Upper trapezius (left)	0.90 (0.80-0.95)	<0.001***	0.54	1.51	0.72 (0.44-0.86)	<0.001***	0.96	2.65	
Upper trapezius (right)	0.78 (0.55-0.89)	<0.001***	0.80	2.21	0.75 (0.50-0.88)	<0.001***	0.89	2.47	
Levator scapulae (left)	0.85 (0.69-0.92)	<0.001***	0.83	2.31	0.75 (0.50-0.88)	<0.001***	1.10	3.06	
Levator scapulae (right)	0.75 (0.49-0.88)	<0.001***	1.02	2.82	0.68 (0.34-0.84)	0.001***	1.13	3.12	
Deltoid (left)	0.77 (0.53-0.89)	<0.001***	0.88	2.45	0.76 (0.51-0.88)	<0.001***	0.98	2.71	
Deltoid (right)	0.68 (0.34-0.84)	0.001***	1.11	3.08	0.73 (0.44-0.86)	<0.001***	1.00	2.78	
Tibialis anterior (left)	0.85 (0.70-0.93)	<0.001***	0.86	2.39	0.77 (0.54-0.89)	<0.001***	1.08	2.98	
Tibialis anterior (right)	0.75 (0.50-0.88)	<0.001***	1.09	3.02	0.68 (0.36-0.84)	0.001***	1.21	3.36	

Discussion

This study was designed to examine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Commander pressure algometer in patients with NSCNP.

The majority of the sample was women (66.7%), as women disproportionately report more neck/shoulder region musculoskeletal disorders than men [33].

Participants’ SFMPQ and depression (HADS) scores were significantly greater at T2, while the rest of the scale scores (VAS, PPI, GPE, and TSK) remained similar in T1 and T2. Since the questionnaires were repeated after six days, these findings may represent a variability in the intensity and quality of pain and depression-related symptoms the patients reported [12,13].

The findings showed “moderate to good” intra-rater reliability for both raters. ICC values for PPT at the seven bilaterally measured sites varied between 0.67 and 0.86 for the first rater (p ≤ 0.001) and 0.64 and 0.82 for the second rater (p ≤ 0.003). The inter-rater reliability was “moderate to excellent” with an ICC range from 0.68 to 0.92 in T1 and “moderate to good” with an ICC range of 0.68 to 0.89 in T2. The results of the present study adequately support the reliability, both intra- and inter-rater, of the Commander algometer at the selected measuring sites. Among the literature data, only one study has examined the reliability of the Commander algometer, which has found high intra-rater reliability (Cronbach’s alpha values range > 0.85) and moderate inter-rater reliability (ICC < 0.561) [9]. However, this study has applied Cronbach's a (which is a measure of internal consistency) as a test-retest reliability index.

In a broader comparison context on chronic neck patients, the ICC intra-rater values of this study are comparable to a number of studies [4,37,38]. Specifically, Persson et al. (2004) evaluated the test-retest reliability of PPT measurements in the upper trapezius muscle in 27 healthy women [37]. The range of the ICC was 0.7 to 0.9 which is close enough to our results. Oliveira et al. (2021) similarly found a “good intra-rater reliability” between measurements (ICC: 0.75-0.78) in women with chronic neck pain [38]. In Walton et al.'s (2011) study [4], the intra-rater reliability was higher than ours with the ICC values ranging from 0.94-0.97 to 0.96-0.97, both for healthy participants and patients with acute neck pain, respectively. Also, slightly higher intra-rater reliability was reported by two other studies on chronic neck pain patients [39,40]. In the first study, the ICC values ranged from 0.83 to 0.89 [39]. In the second study, the ICC ranged from 0.79 to 0.91 in the neck pain group [40].

The inter-rater reliability of PPT values in chronic neck pain patients of the present study is similar to findings gathered from related studies in the literature [4,38]. For instance, Walton et al. (2011) found “good reliability” in both healthy participants (ICC: 0.79-0.84) as well as participants with acute neck pain (ICC: 0.81-0.9) [4], while Oliveira et al. (2021), found a “good inter-rater reliability” (ICC: 0.858-0.874) on MTrPs of the upper trapezius muscle, in 30 young adult women with chronic neck pain [38]. The above findings confirm the reliability of the PPT measurements in chronic neck pain patients which is in line with the results of the current study, whose measurement method was the Commander algometer.

Among the study’s strengths was the assessment of central sensitization, achieved by measuring two distal or remote PPT sites (tibialis anterior muscle and the middle part of the deltoid muscle). A standardized methodology and a homogenous sample of chronic neck pain patients were also two strength factors. On the other hand, the subjective nature of the pain measurement can be viewed as a weakness in such studies [41]. The standardized procedure which ensured that patients would be allowed adequate time and participate in several trials to adapt and become acquainted and finally familiar with the procedures through which the measurements were taken can be considered an effective way to minimize the subjective aspect that could possibly affect the findings. Another interesting addition would be to include a sex and age-controlled group of healthy subjects to identify the differences between neck pain patients and healthy controls with the Commander algometer [4].

Conclusions

The present study shows that the Commander algometer is a reliable tool for PPT measurements in Greek NSCNP patients. Both intra-rater and test-retest reliability were indicated for a period of six days in a Greek sample of patients suffering from NSCNP. The intra-rater reliability was "moderate to good” for both raters and the inter-rater reliability was “moderate to excellent” in T1 and “moderate to good” in T2. We conclude that pressure algometry using the Commander device is a suitable method for the assessment of PPT in NSCNP patients.

We would like to thank the “Mikis Theodorakis” Multipurpose Center for Cultural, Sports and Social Activities of Ilion, Athens, Greece, for providing the premises during the recruitment of the sample and data collection.

Disclosures

Author Contributions

Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Research Ethics Committee of the University of West Attica (UNIWA) issued approval 103276/18-12-2020.

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Concept and design:  Charalampos Skordis, Christina Liaskou, Evangelia Papagiakoumou, Spyridon Sotiropoulos, Theodora Plavoukou, Palina Karakasidou, George Georgoudis

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Charalampos Skordis, Palina Karakasidou, George Georgoudis

Drafting of the manuscript:  Charalampos Skordis, Christina Liaskou, Evangelia Papagiakoumou, Spyridon Sotiropoulos, Theodora Plavoukou, Palina Karakasidou, George Georgoudis

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Charalampos Skordis, Christina Liaskou, Evangelia Papagiakoumou, Spyridon Sotiropoulos, Theodora Plavoukou, George Georgoudis

Supervision:  George Georgoudis
==== Refs
References

1 Manual therapy versus therapeutic exercise in non-specific chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial Trials Bernal-Utrera C Gonzalez-Gerez JJ Anarte-Lazo E Rodriguez-Blanco C 682 21 2020 32723399
2 Short- and mid-term effects of adding upper cervical manual therapy to a conventional physical therapy program in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain. Randomized controlled clinical trial Clin Rehabil González-Rueda V López-de-Celis C Bueno-Gracia E Rodríguez-Sanz J Pérez-Bellmunt A Barra-López ME Hidalgo García C 378 389 35 2021 33076707
3 A descriptive study of pressure pain threshold at 2 standardized sites in people with acute or subacute neck pain J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Walton DM Macdermid JC Nielson W Teasell RW Nailer T Maheu P 651 657 41 2011 21885907
4 Reliability, standard error, and minimum detectable change of clinical pressure pain threshold testing in people with and without acute neck pain J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Walton DM Macdermid JC Nielson W Teasell RW Chiasson M Brown L 644 650 41 2011 21885906
5 Comparing central pain processing in individuals with non-traumatic neck pain and healthy individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Pain Xie Y Jun D Thomas L Coombes BK Johnston V 1101 1124 21 2020 32574788
6 Reliability and validity of a pressure algometer J Strength Cond Res Kinser AM Sands WA Stone MH 312 314 23 2009 19130648
7 Pressure algometry over normal muscles. Standard values, validity and reproducibility of pressure threshold Pain Fischer AA 115 126 30 1987 3614975
8 Evidence of persistent central sensitization in chronic headaches: a multi-method study J Headache Pain Filatova E Latysheva N Kurenkov A 295 300 9 2008 18690491
9 Reliability of pressure pain thresholds in healthy young adults J Musculoskelet Pain Aytar A Senbursa G Baltaci G Yuruk ZO Pekyavas NO 225 231 22 2014
10 Effects of the cervical flexion angle during smartphone use on muscle fatigue and pain in the cervical erector spinae and upper trapezius in normal adults in their 20s J Phys Ther Sci Lee S Choi YH Kim J 921 923 29 2017 28603372
11 A comparison of low dose ultrasound and far-infrared therapies in patients with mechanical neck pain J Pak Med Assoc Hany Sedeek Abousenna MM Mohamed Shalaby AS Chahal A Shaphe A 397 401 71 2021 33819214
12 Intrarater and interrater reliability of select clinical tests in patients referred for diagnostic facet joint blocks in the cervical spine Arch Phys Med Rehabil Schneider GM Jull G Thomas K 1628 1634 94 2013 23485344
13 Respiratory dysfunction in patients with chronic neck pain - influence of thoracic spine and chest mobility Man Ther Wirth B Amstalden M Perk M Boutellier U Humphreys BK 440 444 19 2014 24835338
14 “I know it’s changed”: a mixed-methods study of the meaning of global perceived effect in chronic neck pain patients Eur Spine J Evans R Bronfort G Maiers M Schulz C Hartvigsen J 888 897 23 2014 24408636
15 Sensory, motor, and psychosocial characteristics of individuals with chronic neck pain: a case-control study Phys Ther Rampazo ÉP da Silva VR de Andrade AL Back CG Madeleine PM Arendt-Nielsen L Liebano RE 2021
16 The effect of pressure pain sensitivity and patient factors on self-reported pain-disability in patients with chronic neck pain Open Orthop J Uddin Z MacDermid JC Woodhouse LJ Triano JJ Galea V Gross AR 302 309 8 2014 25320651
17 The relationship between neck pain and physical activity Open Orthop J Cheung J Kajaks T Macdermid JC 521 529 7 2013 24133553
18 Psychometric properties of pressure pain thresholds measured in 2 positions for adults with and without neck-shoulder pain and tenderness J Manipulative Physiol Ther Wang-Price S Zafereo J Brizzolara K Mackin B Lawson L Seeger D Lawson S 416 424 42 2019 31337510
19 Principle study of Head Meridian acupoint massage to stress release via grey data model analysis Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Lee YT 4943204 2016 2016 26904144
20 Identification of the optimal points for the acupuncture treatment of neck pain in China: protocol for a multicenter, matched, case-control study BMJ Open Sun M Tao S Geng G 0 9 2019
21 Effect of acupuncture at ST36 on motor cortical excitation and inhibition Brain Behav Sun ZG Pi YL Zhang J Wang M Zou J Wu W 0 9 2019
22 Pressure algometry is a useful tool to quantify pain in the medial part of the knee: an intra- and inter-reliability study in healthy subjects Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Pelfort X Torres-Claramunt R Sánchez-Soler JF Hinarejos P Leal-Blanquet J Valverde D Monllau JC 559 563 101 2015 26025162
23 Reliability of the pressure algometer as a measure of myofascial trigger point sensitivity Pain Reeves JL Jaeger B Graff-Radford SB 313 321 24 1986 3960573
24 Test-retest reliability, repeatability, and sensitivity of an automated deformation-controlled indentation on pressure pain threshold measurement J Manipulative Physiol Ther Koo TK Guo JY Brown CM 84 90 36 2013 23499143
25 Instrumental validity and intra/inter-rater reliability of a novel low-cost digital pressure algometer PeerJ Jerez-Mayorga D Dos Anjos CF Macedo MC Fernandes IG Aedo-Muñoz E Intelangelo L Barbosa AC 0 8 2020
26 Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status J Clin Epidemiol Kamper SJ Ostelo RW Knol DL Maher CG de Vet HC Hancock MJ 760 766 63 2010 20056385
27 Muscular endurance and its association with neck pain, disability, neck awareness, and kinesiophobia in patients with chronic neck pain Somatosens Mot Res Dere T Alemdaroğlu-Gürbüz İ 1 8 2023
28 Clinimetrics: tampa scale for kinesiophobia J Physiother Weermeijer JD Meulders A 126 64 2018 29567379
29 Physiotherapy Assessment in Painful Musculoskeletal Conditions: Validity and Reliability of the Greek Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia Conference: International Forum on Pain Medicine. World Institute of Pain: European Federation of IASP Chapters Georgoudis G Papathanasiou G Spyropoulos P Katsoulakis K 2005 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236982740_Physiotherapy_Assessment_in_Painful_Musculoskeletal_Conditions_Validity_and_Reliability_of_the_Greek_Tampa_Scale_of_Kinesiophobia
30 Cognitive assessment of musculoskeletal pain: validity and reliability of the Greek version of the Tampa scale of kinesiophobia in patients suffering from chronic low back pain Maedica (Bucur) Georgoudis G Raptis K Koutserimpas C 826 832 17 2022 36818248
31 Depression and anxiety as major determinants of neck pain: a cross-sectional study in general practice BMC Musculoskelet Disord Blozik E Laptinskaya D Herrmann-Lingen C Schaefer H Kochen MM Himmel W Scherer M 13 10 2009 19171034
32 Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): validation in a Greek general hospital sample Ann Gen Psychiatry Michopoulos I Douzenis A Kalkavoura C 4 7 2008 18325093
33 Sex differences in perceptual responses to experimental pain before and after an experimental fatiguing arm task Biol Sex Differ Otto A Emery K Côté JN 39 10 2019 31391124
34 The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire Pain Melzack R 191 197 30 1987 3670870
35 Reliability and sensitivity measures of the Greek version of the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire Eur J Pain Georgoudis G Oldham JA Watson PJ 109 118 5 2001
36 A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research J Chiropr Med Koo TK Li MY 155 163 15 2016 27330520
37 Tender or not tender: test-retest repeatability of pressure pain thresholds in the trapezius and deltoid muscles of healthy women J Rehabil Med Persson AL Brogårdh C Sjölund BH 17 27 36 2004 15074434
38 Reliability of pressure pain threshold on myofascial trigger points in the trapezius muscle of women with chronic neck pain Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) Oliveira AK Dibai-Filho AV Soleira G Machado AC Guirro RR 708 712 67 2021 34550260
39 Reliability, construct and discriminative validity of clinical testing in subjects with and without chronic neck pain BMC Musculoskelet Disord Jørgensen R Ris I Falla D Juul-Kristensen B 408 15 2014 25477032
40 Pressure pain thresholds in university students with undertreated neck pain: comparison with asymptomatic individuals, reliability and measurement error Eur J Physiother Ferreira J Matias B Silva AG 284 289 22 2019
41 Clinical pressure pain threshold testing in neck pain: comparing protocols, responsiveness, and association with psychological variables Phys Ther Walton DM Levesque L Payne M Schick J 827 837 94 2014 24557645
