Clinical sensory tests in professional practice: a web-based survey on awareness and challenges among Italian physicians and physiotherapists.

BackgroundObjectiveMethodsResultsConclusionsClinical sensory testing comprises pragmatic, relatively low-cost bedside approaches for appraising somatosensory function. However, clinicians’ perceptions of these approaches and the barriers they associate with their use in Italy are poorly characterize...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Physiotherapy Theory & Practice pp. 1 - 12
Autores principales: Rossi, Federico, Giovannico, Giuseppe, Pellicciari, Leonardo, Vinciguerra, Vincenzo, Argentieri, Guido, Guerra, Germano, Cioeta, Matteo
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: Taylor & Francis Ltd Aug2026
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=196558475&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 196558475
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        09593985
        BCJ
      jtl: Physiotherapy Theory & Practice
      issn: 09593985
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Aug2026
      pid: 377
      pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd
      place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    artinfo:
      ui:
        196558475
        10.1080/09593985.2026.2723491
        196558475
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Clinical sensory tests in professional practice: a web-based survey on awareness and challenges among Italian physicians and physiotherapists.
      aug:
        au:
          Rossi, Federico
          Giovannico, Giuseppe
          Pellicciari, Leonardo
          Vinciguerra, Vincenzo
          Argentieri, Guido
          Guerra, Germano
          Cioeta, Matteo
        affil: University of Molise
      sug:
      ab: BackgroundObjectiveMethodsResultsConclusionsClinical sensory testing comprises pragmatic, relatively low-cost bedside approaches for appraising somatosensory function. However, clinicians’ perceptions of these approaches and the barriers they associate with their use in Italy are poorly characterized.To describe self-reported perceptions of clinical sensory testing, preferred approaches to the assessment of different sensory modalities, and perceived barriers among Italian physicians and physiotherapists.A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted disseminating nationally through non-probability recruitment between January and August 2025. Eligible respondents self-identified as licensed physicians or physiotherapists practicing in Italy and reported at least partial involvement in assessment of musculoskeletal or neuromuscular conditions. Questionnaire comprised 18 mandatory closed-ended items covering professional characteristics, perceived barriers, conceptual/methodological perceptions, preferred sensory-assessment options, and perceived clinical applicability. Results were summarized separately by profession using frequencies and percentages.Four hundred and ninety-six complete questionnaires were analyzed (105 physicians, 391 physiotherapists). Time constraints were the most frequently selected barrier among physicians (90/105, 85.7%) and physiotherapists (302/391, 77.2%). A low-cost screening approach for somatosensory alterations was selected as the preferred CST definition by 69 physicians (65.7%) and 280 physiotherapists (71.6%). Small-fiber assessment was rated as “quite important” by 67 physicians (63.8%) and 214 physiotherapists (54.7%). For tactile, thermal, nociceptive, and vibratory assessment, respondents most often selected cotton swabs, warm/cold coins, toothpicks, and tuning forks, respectively, although the response distributions differed between the two samples.Respondents generally perceived clinical sensory testing as a low-cost and potentially useful approach, and time was the most frequently selected barrier. The findings describe perceptions and preferred response options rather than objective knowledge, verified professional competence, or actual CST use. They should not be interpreted as nationally representative estimates. Future studies should evaluate the validity, reliability, feasibility, and implementation of brief standardized CST approaches using more representative recruitment and direct measures of clinical behavior.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N