Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the painDETECT Scale Into Spanish

Andrés, José De; Pérez-Cajaraville, J.; López-Alarcon, Maria Dolores; Millan, Jorge; Margarit, César; Rodrigo-Royo, Maria Dolores; Franco-Gay, María Luisa; Abejón, David; Ruiz, Miguel Á.; López-Gómez, V.; Pérez, María

doi:10.1097/ajp.0b013e31822bb35b

Cited by 78 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the seven-item version resulted in a slightly higher reliability (Cronbach’s α =0.80) than the nine-item version (Cronbach’s α =0.76) and more consistent item-level discrimination. The reliability of the seven-item version is not only similar to that reported in the validation study (Cronbach’s α =0.83),15 but its higher value than the nine-item version is also in concordance with previous observations,27 suggesting that the two nonsensory items are not psychometrically compatible with the sensory items. While further confirmation for the greater reliability of the seven-item version is needed, it can nevertheless be recommended that the seven sensory items be used together; the two nonsensory items, on temporal and spatial characterization of the pain pattern, that are included in the nine-item version can be analyzed and interpreted separately.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Although there is a need for characterizing and quantifying NeP concurrently with its identification in patients with various NeP conditions, to our knowledge, no other NeP instrument has yet been specifically validated for distinguishing between levels of average pain severity. These results therefore complement and extend studies that have suggested that NeP-screening instruments may help distinguish among sensory symptom profiles and pain-severity levels 16,17,25–27…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…In addition, in the current study, the cumulative distributions convincingly showed that painDETECT scores were dependent on the degree of average pain severity for patients with confirmed NeP; fitting only one curve for all patients with NeP (ie, without regard to average pain severity), as has been done previously,15,27 would mask this finding.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…It should also be noted that since the population in the current study consisted of patients with confirmed NeP, the cumulative distribution curves are in marked contrast to those in studies evaluating discrimination between main pain subtypes (nociceptive, pure neuropathic, mixed) where the nociceptive group clearly resulted in lower (more favorable) scores on painDETECT 15,27. In addition, in the current study, the cumulative distributions convincingly showed that painDETECT scores were dependent on the degree of average pain severity for patients with confirmed NeP; fitting only one curve for all patients with NeP (ie, without regard to average pain severity), as has been done previously,15,27 would mask this finding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Measurement properties of painDETECT by average pain severity

Cappelleri¹,

Bienen

Koduru³

et al. 2014

CEOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSince the burden of neuropathic pain (NeP) increases with pain severity, it is important to characterize and quantify pain severity when identifying NeP patients. This study evaluated whether painDETECT, a screening questionnaire to identify patients with NeP, can distinguish pain severity.Materials and methodsSubjects (n=614, 55.4% male, 71.8% white, mean age 55.5 years) with confirmed NeP were identified during office visits to US community-based physicians. The Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form stratified subjects by mild (score 0–3, n=110), moderate (score 4–6, n=297), and severe (score 7–10, n=207) average pain. Scores on the nine-item painDETECT (seven pain-symptom items, one pain-course item, one pain-irradiation item) range from −1 to 38 (worst NeP); the seven-item painDETECT scores (only pain symptoms) range from 0 to 35. The ability of painDETECT to discriminate average pain-severity levels, based on the average pain item from the Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form (0–10 scale), was evaluated using analysis of variance or covariance models to obtain unadjusted and adjusted (age, sex, race, ethnicity, time since NeP diagnosis, number of comorbidities) mean painDETECT scores. Cumulative distribution functions on painDETECT scores by average pain severity were compared (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). Cronbach’s alpha assessed internal consistency reliability.ResultsUnadjusted mean scores were 15.2 for mild, 19.8 for moderate, and 24.0 for severe pain for the nine items, and 14.3, 18.6, and 22.7, respectively, for the seven items. Adjusted nine-item mean scores for mild, moderate, and severe pain were 17.3, 21.3, and 25.3, respectively; adjusted seven-item mean scores were 16.4, 20.1, and 24.0, respectively. All pair-wise comparisons of scores between pain-severity groups showed sizable and statistically significant differences (P<0.0001). Cumulative distribution functions showed distinct separation between severity (P<0.0001). Cronbach’s alphas were 0.76 and 0.80 for the nine- and seven-item scales, respectively.ConclusionThis study provides strong psychometric evidence on the validity and reliability of painDETECT for distinguishing average pain severity in patients with NeP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measurement properties of painDETECT by average pain severity

Cappelleri¹,

Bienen

Koduru³

et al. 2014

CEOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ofrece una representación visual del patrón del curso del dolor con el tiempo para apoyar la identificación correcta del tipo de dolor y hace uso de un mapa sensorial para evaluar la presencia de dolor irradiado (14).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Radiofrecuencia pulsada del ganglio de la raíz dorsal torácico con catéter epidrual. Un nuevo abordaje de un tratamiento efectivo

Esparza-Miñana

Mazzinari

Belaouchi

et al. 2017

Rev. Soc. Esp. Dolor.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artículo Aceptado para su pre-publicación / Article Accepted for prepublication Título / Title: Radiofrecuencia pulsada del ganglio de la raíz dorsal torácico con catéter epidrual. Un nuevo abordaje de un tratamiento efectivo / Pulsed radiofrequency of the thoracic dorsal root ganglion with epidural catheter-electrode. A new approach for an effective treatment Este es un archivo PDF de un manuscrito inédito que ha sido aceptado para su publicación en la Revista de la Sociedad Española del Dolor. Como un servicio a nuestros clientes estamos proporcionando esta primera versión del manuscrito en estado de prepublicación. El manuscrito será sometido a la corrección de estilo final, composición y revisión de la prueba resultante antes de que se publique en su forma final. Tenga en cuenta que durante el proceso de producción se pueden dar errores lo que podría afectar el contenido final. El copyright y todos los derechos legales que se aplican al artículo pertenecen a la Revista de la Sociedad Española de Dolor. RADIOFRECUENCIA PULSADA DEL GANGLIO DE LA RAÍZ DORSAL TORÁCICO CON CATÉTER EPIDURAL. UN NUEVO ABORDAJE DE UN TRATAMIENTO EFECTIVO PULSED RADIOFREQUENCY OF THE THORACIC DORSAL ROOT GANGLION WITH EPIDURAL CATHETER-ELECTRODE. A NEW APPROACH FOR AN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT ABSTRACTPulsed radiofrequency (pRF) has been used for the treatment of peripheral nerves and the dorsal root ganglion (DRG). It has been commonly applied for the treatment of low back pain, neck pain and neuropathies with very good results. The dorsal root ganglion is an anatomical structure that is located bilaterally at the distal end of the dorsal root in the lateral epidural space. Most of the thoracic GRDs are located in the medial

show abstract