Table 2.
Extended From Previous Page
| Body Mass Index, Mean |
Physical Activity Level |
Pain Intensity, Mean ± SD or Median (IQR)a |
Type of QST |
Summary of Findings |
| NR | NR | VAS current: 4.8 ± 2.7 | PM | PM: Most patients reported peripatellar pain, less than half reported combined retropatellar and peripatellar pain, and 1 reported retropatellar pain. Patients with symptoms >5 y demonstrated larger pain area than did those with symptoms of <5 y. Most patients reported symmetric bilateral pain. Longer symptom duration was related to spreading of pain up the thigh and down the leg. |
| NR | NR | VAS worst: 5.0 (3.3–7.0) | PM | PM: No sex differences in pain clusters or distributions. Longer symptom duration was associated with bilateral PFP. Longer symptom durations were related to larger pain area and specific pain patterns, including pain up the thigh and down the lower leg. Pain intensity was not related to pain area. |
| PFP group: 24.1; CON group: 22.7 | NR | NRS current: 2.0 ± 2.0; NRS worst previous 4 wk: 7.0 ± 2.0; NRS average previous 4 wk: 4.0 ± 1.0 | PPTs, TSP, CPM, PM | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (center of patella). Remote PPT: PFP group < CON group (elbow). TSP: PFP group > CON group (cuff algometry). CPM: PFP group = CON group (cuff algometry). PM: Most of PFP group reported pain in an area in addition to the knee, and 21% of PFP group met American College of Rheumatology criteria for widespread pain. |
| NR | NR | NRS worst previous wk: 6.6 ± 2.2 | PPTs, CPM, TSP | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (center of patella). Remote PPTs: PFP group < CON group (elbow). CPM: PFP group < CON group (cuff algometry). TSP: PFP group > CON group (cuff algometry). |
| PFP group: 23.8; CON group: 23.4 | NR | VAS current: 2.4 (SD NR); VAS worst: 5.5 (SD NR) | HPT, CPT | HPT: PFP group = CON group. CPT: PFP group = CON group. |
| PFP group: 23.4; CON group: 23.1 | NR | NR | HPT, CPT | HPT: PFP group = CON group. CPT: PFP group = CON group. Other: 32% of participants with PFP did not achieve CPT before cold limit (1°C). 15 With PFP reported heat sensation with CPT testing. |
| PFP group: 25.2; CON group: 24.0 | Weekly activity level (IPAQ): PFP group, 4849.2; CON group, 3191.7 | VAS worst: 5.4 ± 1.6 | PPTs, TSP, CPM, HPT, CPT | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (center of patella). Remote PPTs: PFP group < CON group (elbow). TSP: PFP group > CON group (pinprick test). CPM: PFP group = CON group (cold pressor test). HPT: PFP group < CON group. CPT: PFP group < CON group. |
| NR | NR | NRS current: 5.8 ± 2.0 | PPTs | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (patellar tendon). Remote PPTs: PFP group < CON group (elbow). |
| NR | NR | NR | PPTs | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (lateral to the patella). Remote PPTs: PFP group < CON group (elbow). |
| NR | Distance run per week: PFP group, 19.75 km; CON group, 20.75 km | VAS current: 1.2 ± 1.5; VAS worst previous mo: 4.8 ± 1.5 | PPTs | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (center of patella). Remote PPTs: PFP group < CON group (elbow). |
| PFP group: 20.5; CON group: 21.4 | NR | VAS worst: 5.0 (3.8–6.8); VAS current: 1.3 (0.3–2.7) | PPTs, PM | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (center of patella). Remote PPTs: PFP group < CON group (tibialis anterior). PM: Majority of PFP group reported bilateral pain that was peripatellar and diffuse. |
| NR | Sport participation: PFP group, 80%; CON group, 75% | NR | PPTs, TSP, CPM, PM | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (center of patella). Remote PPTs: PFP group < CON group (elbow). TSP: PFP group = CON group (cuff algometry). CPM: PFP group < CON group (cuff algometry). PM: Most participants with PFP reported peripatellar pain that included spreading pain up the thigh. |
| PFP group: 24.2; CON group: 21.9 | NR | NRS worst previous wk: 5.0 (3.0–7.0) | PPTs, CPM, PM | Local PPTs: No difference between PFP and CON groups (center of patella). Remote PPTs: No difference between PFP and CON groups (elbow). CPM: PFP = CON group (cold-pressor test). PM: Most participants with PFP reported retropatellar pain and combined retropatellar and peripatellar pain. One reported only peripatellar pain. |
| PFP group: 23.9; CON group: 23.3 | Sport participation: PFP group, 54.5%; CON group, 81.3% | NRS current: 4.7 ± 2.3 | PPTs | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (center of patella). |
| PFP group: 23.6; CON group: 22.3 | Sport participation: PFP group, 38%; CON group, 55% | NRS current: 4.7 (SD NR) | PPT | Local PPTs: PFP group < CON group (most painful location). Remote PPTs: PFP group < CON group (forearm). Other: age did not affect PPTs. Lower PPTs for females versus males for bilateral knees and the contralateral arm. Sex modified effect size between PFP and CON groups. |