#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

Validation of the Czech Version of the Neuropathic Pain Symp­tom Inventory (NPSIcz)


Authors: I. Šrotová 1,2;  E. Vlčková 1,2;  J. Straková 1;  S. Kincová 1,2;  L. Ryba 3;  L. Dušek 4;  B. Adamová 1,2;  J. Bednařík 1,2
Authors place of work: Neurologická klinika LF MU a FN Brno 1;  CEITEC – Středoevropský technologický institut MU Brno 2;  Ortopedická klinika LF MU a FN Brno 3;  Institut biostatistiky a analýz MU, Brno 4
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2015; 78/111(1): 45-56
Category: Original Paper

Summary

Introduction:
Simple questionnaires based on so called “neuropathic pain descriptors” are the most frequently used screening tools in the dia­gnosis of neuropathic pain, especially by non‑specialists. However, no validated Czech version of any of the internationally accepted nueropathic pain questionnaires is available.

Aim:
The aim of this study was to develop and validate a Czech version of the Neuropathic Pain Symp­tom Inventory (NPSI), a questionnaire that allows the user to characterize subtypes of neuropathic pain, is sensitive to change, and has discriminatory power.

Patients and methods:
The NPSI was translated into the NPSIcz using the forward‑ backward translation method and validated in a group of patients suffering from neuropathic pain of peripheral (n = 66) or central origin (n = 30) due to polyneuropathy or multiple sclerosis, and in a group of individuals suffering from nociceptive pain (due to severe osteoarthritis of the knee or hip joint; n = 70). The NPSIcz was repeated within three hours in 19 individuals to determine test‑ retest reliability.

Results:
The NPSIcz showed good dia­gnostic validity in discriminating between patients with neuropathic and nociceptive pain (p < 0.001) but low ability to discriminate between patients with central and peripheral neuropathic pain (p > 0.05). Repeated administration confirmed acceptable test‑ retest reliability (intra‑ class correlation coefficient of 0.86 for the NPSIcz sum score). Cluster analysis identified six different pain profiles.

Conclusions:
The NPSIcz is able to discriminate between neuropathic and nociceptive pain, to identify different pain profiles, and has acceptable test‑ retest reliability. It can, therefore, be recommended as an easy‑ to‑ administer questionnaire suitable for the dia­gnosis of neuropathic pain, including long‑term follow up.

Key words:
neuropathic pain – nociceptive pain – pain measurement – questionnaire – polyneuropathy – multiple sclerosis – osteoarthritis

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manu­script met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.


Zdroje

1. Treede RD, Jensen TS, Campbell JN, Cruccu G, Ostrovsky JO, Griffin JW et al. Neuropathic pain: redefinition and a grading system for clinical and research purposes. Brain 2008; 70(18): 1630– 1635.

2. Bouhassira D, Lantéri‑ Minet M, Attal N, Laurent B, Touboul C. Prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics in the general population. Pain 2008; 136(3): 380– 387.

3. Torrance N, Smith BH, Bennett MI, Lee AJ. The epidemiology of chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin. Results from a general population survey. J Pain 2006; 7(4): 281– 289.

4. Freynhagen R, Baron R, Gockel U, Tölle TR. PainDETECT: a new screening questionnaire to identify neuropathic components in patients with back pain. Curr Med Res Opin 2006; 22(10): 1911– 1120.

5. Bennett MI, Attal N, Backonja MM, Baron R, Bouhassira D, Freynhagen R et al. Using screening tools to identify neuropathic pain. Pain 2007; 127(3): 199– 203.

6. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major pro­perties and scoring. Pain 1975; 1(3): 277– 299.

7. Gracely RH, Dubner R, McGrath P, Heft H. New methods of pain measurement and their application to pain control. Int Dent J 1978; 28(1): 52– 65.

8. Cleeland CS. Pain assessment in cancer. In: Osoba D (ed). Effect of cancer on quality of life. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Inc: 1991: 293– 305.

9. Bennett M. The LANSS Pain Scale: the Leeds assessment of neuropathic symp­toms and signs. Pain 2001; 92(1– 2): 147– 157.

10. Bennett MI, Smith BH, Torrance N, Potter J. The S‑ LANSS score for identifying pain of predominantly neuropathic origin: validation for use in clinical and postal research. J Pain 2005; 6(3): 149– 158.

11. Krause SJ, Backonja MM. Development of a neuropathic pain questionnaire. Clin J Pain 2003; 19(5): 306– 314.

12. Backonja MM, Krause SJ. Neuropathic pain questionnaire –  short form. Clin J Pain 2003; 19(5): 315– 316.

13. Bouhassira D, Attal N, Fermanian J, Alchaar H, Gautron M, Masquelier E et al. Development and validation of the Neuropathic Pain Symp­tom Inventory. Pain 2004; 108(3): 248– 257.

14. Bouhassira D, Attal N, Alchaar H, Boureau F, Brochet B, Bruxelle J et al. Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain dia­gnostic questionnaire (DN4). Pain 2005; 114(1– 2): 29– 36.

15. Portenoy R. Development and testing of a neuropathic pain screening questionnaire: ID pain. Curr Med Res Opin 2006; 22(8): 1555– 1565.

16. Cruccu G, Sommer C, Anand P, Attal N, Baron R, Garcia‑ Larrea L et al. EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment: revised 2009. Eur J Neurol 2010; 17(8): 1010– 1018. doi: 10.1111/ j.1468‑ 1331.2010.02969.x.

17. Haanpää M, Attal N, Backonja M, Baron R, Bennett M, Bouhassira et al. NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment. Pain 2011; 152(1): 14– 27. doi: 10.1016/ j.pain.2010.07.031.

18. Sommer C, Richter H, Rogausch JP, Frettlöh J, Lungenhausen M, Maier C. A modified score to identify and discriminate neuropathic pain: a study on the German version of the Neuropathic Pain Symp­tom Inventory (NPSI). BMC Neurol 2011; 11: 104. doi: 10.1186/ 1471‑ 2377‑ 11‑ 104.

19. England JD, Gronseth GS, Franklin G, Miller RG, Asbury AK, Carter GT et al. Distal symmetric polyneuropathy: a definition for clinical research: report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Electrodia­gnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Neurology 2005; 64(2): 199– 207.

20. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, Clanet M, Cohen JA, Filippi M et al. Dia­gnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011; 69(2): 292– 302. doi: 10.1002/ ana.22366.

21. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo‑ arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957; 16(4): 494– 502.

22. Haverkamp D, Brokelman RB, van Loon CJ, van Kampen A. Timing of arthroplasty, what is the influence of nocturnal pain and pain at rest on the outcome? Knee Surg Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21(11): 2590– 2594. doi: 10.1007/ s00167‑ 012‑ 2071‑ x.

Štítky
Paediatric neurology Neurosurgery Neurology

Článok vyšiel v časopise

Czech and Slovak Neurology and Neurosurgery

Číslo 1

2015 Číslo 1
Najčítanejšie tento týždeň
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#