Free access supported by contributions and sponsoring — share your knowledge or support us financially
Search / Compare / Validate Lab equipment & Methods

Algometer

Manufactured by Wagner Instruments
Sourced in United States
About the product

The Algometer is a laboratory instrument used to measure pressure pain thresholds. It applies a controlled, steadily increasing force to a specific area of the body and records the point at which the subject experiences pain. The device provides an objective measure of pain sensitivity.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

Market Availability & Pricing

Is this product still available?

Get pricing insights and sourcing options

Product FAQ

6 protocols using «algometer»

1

Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing in Children

2025
The mQST was conducted using a protocol similar to previous investigations [32 (link), 33 (link)]. We collected a 30-second baseline video recording of the child in the examination chair for the child to acclimate to the environment and for behavioral coders to identify baseline behaviors not related to stimulus application. The stimuli consisted of six calibrated stimuli and two sham trials in the same order, except for the randomized sham. An initial sham trial was conducted for every mQST, where a von Frey monofilament with the fiber closed was held approximately two inches away from the calf, consistent with all other applications except for the actual touch. Light touch was applied once per second for 5 s by hand with a von Frey monofilament (2.0 g) pressed against the skin until the filament bent at a 45° angle. A light pin prick was applied for less than one second with a plastic neurological exam pin (Medipin; US Neurologicals). Cold touch was applied lightly for five seconds using a room temperature metal thermal probe (approximately 22 °C; Tip Therm, US Neurologicals). Deep pressure was applied by hand using an algometer (Wagner Instruments) pressed into the calf at a consistent 4 lbs of pressure for 5 s. A repeated von Frey monofilament (60 g) was applied by hand at approximately 1 Hz for 30 s. Heat was applied for five seconds using a 3-mm electronic thermal heat probe (WR Medical Electronics) at a temperature of 50 C. The randomized sham was conducted in the same way as the initial sham but was randomized into the sequence.
Stimuli were applied to the back of the child’s bare left and then the right calf. Each stimulus approach and removal were audibly signaled and accompanied by a 5-second lag between signal and application. Timing was guided by an in-ear digital timer. At least a ten-second return to baseline for child behavior separated the application of each stimuli type. If a participant had tears or other signs of distress, the stimulus application was terminated. If distress was ongoing after stopping the application, the entire mQST was terminated at the lead examiner and/or caregiver’s discretion.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
2

Immediate Effects of LLLT on Pain, Pressure Pain Threshold, and Cervical ROM

2020
We examined the immediate effects of LLLT using a before-after design in which the clinically relevant measurements were evaluated before and 15-min after laser application. The outcome measurements, which included objective pain scores using the visual analogue scale (VAS), pressure pain threshold at the trigger point, and cervical ROM, were performed by the same physician.
We evaluated the pressure pain threshold of the trigger point using an algometer (Wagner Instruments, USA), following the procedure of pressure pain threshold measurement proposed by Fischer [22 (link)]. The threshold was determined as the mean of the two last values out of three consecutive measurements, with a 10 s pause in between.
Active cervical ROM for three motion planes, including flexion-extension, bending, and rotation, were measured with the MicroFET3 electrogoniometer (Hoggan Health Industries, USA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
3

Assessing Trapezius Muscle Discomfort Thresholds

2020
To assess the subjective parameter, i.e., the threshold of first discomfort, a Wagner Instruments Algometer was used. In the study, the place of measurement was the point located on the upper trapezius in the middle of the section between the C7 spinous process and the shoulder angle of the acromion. The subjects were lying down on their back. Pressure, detected through the Algometer sensor, was applied from above and perpendicular to the examined muscle. Three measurements were taken alternately for both sides of the upper trapezius. Mean values were calculated from these measurements, which were the results for the right and left sides of the examined muscle. The Algometer test is a reliable and reproducible method of assessing the threshold of discomfort and pain of varying intensity [33 (link)].
All measurements were made at three time-intervals: before therapy (pre); after therapy (post); and on the second day after therapy (follow-up).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
4

Standardizing Abdominal Examination in Traditional Korean Medicine

2017
Abdominal examination has been one of the characteristic methods for diagnosis, choosing a therapy, and predicting prognosis in Traditional Korean Medicine [37 ]. We will utilise an algometer to standardise and quantitatively describe the abdominal examination [38 (link)]. Using an algometer (Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT), one operator will apply pressure to 3 acupoints (CV17, CV12, and ST25) vertically against the surface. Pressure will be applied at a rate of 1 kg/cm2/sec and participants will be instructed to report the beginning of pain by saying “stop” immediately after the perception of pain is transferred from pressure. The examiner will immediately stop pressing and record the pressure pain threshold (PPT) value. The maximum PPT will be limited to 8 kg/cm2 in order to prevent distorted measures. At each assessment, PPT will be measured three times with the intervals of 1 minute [38 (link), 39 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
5

Evaluating Shoulder Muscle Function in Myofascial Pain

2016
The subject was seated with their back supported, knees and hips flexed to 90°and their arms by their side in a relaxed position. An operator marked a standardized anatomical landmark system (ALS) over the right shoulder region of all subjects while they were seated [27] . The ALS consisted of a line between the spinous process of the seventh cervical vertebrae and the acromial angle (Xaxis), and a second line perpendicular to the first passing through its midpoint (Y-axis). The distance between the spinous process of the seventh cervical vertebrae and the acromial angle was measured using a measuring tape.
A palpation examination was performed on all subjects. For the subjects with myofascial pain, the examination was performed to confirm the presence of a clinically relevant MTrP, while for asymptomatic subjects it was performed to exclude the presence of any MTrP and specifically any spot tenderness within any taut band of the upper trapezius muscle. For the subjects with myofascial pain and MTrP, the examiner marked the location of the MTrP on the skin using a custom designed stamp (1 cm2 circle with a dot in the centre). The dot in the centre was overlapped with the spot tenderness, and its distance from the X-and Y-axes of the ALS was measured with a measuring tape. Pain pressure threshold (PTT) over the spot tenderness was recorded using an algometer (Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA). The contact area of the algometer tip was 1 cm 2 and the application rate was approximately 1 kg/s. PPT was measured three times over 10 s intervals, and the average value was recorded as the PPT.
Two adjustable straps connected to the load cells were positioned over the acromion of both shoulders (Figure 1). The subject was instructed to keep their trunk against the back of the chair and both the straps were tensioned to avoid any shoulder movements. The subject was then instructed to perform a shoulder elevation task that consisted of pushing up both shoulders towards the ceiling.
Two maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) of shoulder elevation were performed, each lasting ~4 sec with 2 min rest in between. The subjects were asked to reach their maximum force gradually and were verbally motivated by the investigator. For each of the two MVC contractions, the average value around the maximum force was considered and the highest of the two values was taken as the reference MVC. After ~2 min of rest the subject performed a series of 6 ramped contractions from 0-15-0% and 0-60-0% MVC each of 60 sec duration. The order of the ramp contractions was alternated (15%, 60%, 15%, 60%, 15%, 60%). Visual feedback was provided by means of a moving arrow and two moving bars on a screen positioned ~1 m in front of the subject. EMG and force signals were acquired during each contraction.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols

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!

🧪 Need help with an experiment or choosing lab equipment?
I search the PubCompare platform for you—tapping into 40+ million protocols to bring you relevant answers from scientific literature and vendor data.
1. Find protocols
2. Find best products for an experiment
3. Validate product use from papers
4. Check Product Compatibility
5. Ask a technical question
Want to copy this response? Upgrade to Premium to unlock copy/paste and export options.