Short- and long-term test-retest reliability of the English version of the 7-item DN4 questionnaire - a screening tool for neuropathic pain.

IF 1.5 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-06-26 Print Date: 2023-07-26 DOI:10.1515/sjpain-2022-0149
Svenja Hardt, Selina-Antonette Bergau, Angela Jacques, Brigitte Tampin
{"title":"Short- and long-term test-retest reliability of the English version of the 7-item DN4 questionnaire - a screening tool for neuropathic pain.","authors":"Svenja Hardt, Selina-Antonette Bergau, Angela Jacques, Brigitte Tampin","doi":"10.1515/sjpain-2022-0149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The original French version of the \"Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire\" is a valid screening tool for the identification of neuropathic pain (NeP). The DN4 has been translated into English, but the reliability of the English version has not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the 7-item DN4 questionnaire in regards to short-term reliability before (T0) and immediately after (T1) the clinical examination and long-term reliability one week later (T2).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 222 participants (age 56.33 ± 16 years, 56 % female) were recruited from a Pain Management Department and Neurosurgery Spinal Clinic. For T2 measurements, the 7-item DN4 was sent by post with the \"Patient Global Impression of Change Scale\". The scale detects possible changes of symptoms, scoring from \"very much improved\" (1) to \"very much worse\" (7). Only participants whose symptoms had not changed much (scores 3-5) were included in the T0-T2 analysis. Weighted Kappa was used to analyse the reliability of the DN4 total scores and unweighted Kappa for the DN4 classifications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Considering missing data and exclusions, data of 215 participants could be used for the T0-T1 and data of 103 participants for T0-T2 analysis. There was almost perfect agreement for the 7-item DN4 total score between T0-T1 (weighted <i>k</i>: 0.891, CI: 0.758-1.024) and T0-T2 (weighted <i>k</i>: 0.850, CI: 0.657-1.043). Classifications between neuropathic pain and no neuropathic pain showed almost perfect agreement (<i>k</i>: 0.835, CI: 0.755-0.915) for T0-T1 and substantial agreement (<i>k</i>: 0.733, CI: 0.598-0.868) for T0-T2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The English 7-item DN4 is a reliable screening tool for neuropathic pain.</p><p><strong>Ethical committee number: </strong>#RGS0000001759.</p>","PeriodicalId":47407,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2022-0149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The original French version of the "Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire" is a valid screening tool for the identification of neuropathic pain (NeP). The DN4 has been translated into English, but the reliability of the English version has not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the 7-item DN4 questionnaire in regards to short-term reliability before (T0) and immediately after (T1) the clinical examination and long-term reliability one week later (T2).

Methods: A total of 222 participants (age 56.33 ± 16 years, 56 % female) were recruited from a Pain Management Department and Neurosurgery Spinal Clinic. For T2 measurements, the 7-item DN4 was sent by post with the "Patient Global Impression of Change Scale". The scale detects possible changes of symptoms, scoring from "very much improved" (1) to "very much worse" (7). Only participants whose symptoms had not changed much (scores 3-5) were included in the T0-T2 analysis. Weighted Kappa was used to analyse the reliability of the DN4 total scores and unweighted Kappa for the DN4 classifications.

Results: Considering missing data and exclusions, data of 215 participants could be used for the T0-T1 and data of 103 participants for T0-T2 analysis. There was almost perfect agreement for the 7-item DN4 total score between T0-T1 (weighted k: 0.891, CI: 0.758-1.024) and T0-T2 (weighted k: 0.850, CI: 0.657-1.043). Classifications between neuropathic pain and no neuropathic pain showed almost perfect agreement (k: 0.835, CI: 0.755-0.915) for T0-T1 and substantial agreement (k: 0.733, CI: 0.598-0.868) for T0-T2.

Conclusions: The English 7-item DN4 is a reliable screening tool for neuropathic pain.

Ethical committee number: #RGS0000001759.

神经性疼痛筛查工具--7 项 DN4 问卷英文版的短期和长期重复测试可靠性。
目的:法文原版 "Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire"(DN4 问卷)是识别神经病理性疼痛(NeP)的有效筛查工具。DN4 已被翻译成英文,但英文版的可靠性尚未得到研究。本研究旨在调查 7 项 DN4 问卷在临床检查之前(T0)和之后(T1)的短期可靠性以及一周之后(T2)的长期可靠性:从疼痛治疗科和神经外科脊柱诊所共招募了 222 名参与者(年龄为 56.33 ± 16 岁,56% 为女性)。在进行 T2 测量时,会邮寄 7 项 DN4 和 "患者全球变化印象量表"。该量表用于检测症状的可能变化,评分范围从 "非常改善"(1 分)到 "非常恶化"(7 分)。只有症状变化不大(3-5 分)的参与者才被纳入 T0-T2 分析。加权卡帕用于分析 DN4 总分的可靠性,非加权卡帕用于分析 DN4 分类的可靠性:考虑到数据缺失和排除,215 名参与者的数据可用于 T0-T1 分析,103 名参与者的数据可用于 T0-T2 分析。在T0-T1(加权k:0.891,CI:0.758-1.024)和T0-T2(加权k:0.850,CI:0.657-1.043)之间,7项DN4总分几乎完全一致。神经病理性疼痛和无神经病理性疼痛之间的分类在 T0-T1 阶段几乎完全一致(k:0.835,CI:0.755-0.915),在 T0-T2 阶段基本一致(k:0.733,CI:0.598-0.868):英语 7 项 DN4 是一种可靠的神经病理性疼痛筛查工具:伦理委员会编号:#RGS0000001759。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Scandinavian Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
73
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信