荷兰版帕金森氏症疼痛量表的验证。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Nour Alkaduhimi, Yvonne Kerst, Annemarie Vlaar, Henk Berendse, Henry Weinstein, Erik Scherder
{"title":"荷兰版帕金森氏症疼痛量表的验证。","authors":"Nour Alkaduhimi, Yvonne Kerst, Annemarie Vlaar, Henk Berendse, Henry Weinstein, Erik Scherder","doi":"10.1186/s12883-025-04222-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD)is often underdiagnosed and, therefore, undertreated. The King's Parkinson's Pain Scale (KPPS) is one of the few validated tools specifically designed to assess pain in patients with Parkinson's disease but lacks a Dutch version. This study aims to validate the KPPS for patients in the Netherlands and to examine which cognitive functions are related to the comprehension of the KPPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The KPPS was translated into Dutch and validated in 70 patients with PD through internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity testing. Patients had been diagnosed with PD for an average of 5.65 years. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Dutch KPPS showed acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.69), though its factor structure differed from the original. Convergent validity was confirmed via significant correlations with the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), while discriminant validity was supported through correlations with the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) and EQ-5D-3 L. Verbal memory and abstract thinking showed a tendency toward significance in their association with pain scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Dutch KPPS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing pain in Dutch patients with PD, though its structure differs from the original. These differences may reflect variability in pain perception or classification, highlighting the need for further research integrating the PD-PCS framework to refine pain assessment in PD.</p>","PeriodicalId":9170,"journal":{"name":"BMC Neurology","volume":"25 1","pages":"214"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12096760/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of the Dutch version of the King's Parkinson's disease pain scale.\",\"authors\":\"Nour Alkaduhimi, Yvonne Kerst, Annemarie Vlaar, Henk Berendse, Henry Weinstein, Erik Scherder\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12883-025-04222-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD)is often underdiagnosed and, therefore, undertreated. The King's Parkinson's Pain Scale (KPPS) is one of the few validated tools specifically designed to assess pain in patients with Parkinson's disease but lacks a Dutch version. This study aims to validate the KPPS for patients in the Netherlands and to examine which cognitive functions are related to the comprehension of the KPPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The KPPS was translated into Dutch and validated in 70 patients with PD through internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity testing. Patients had been diagnosed with PD for an average of 5.65 years. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Dutch KPPS showed acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.69), though its factor structure differed from the original. Convergent validity was confirmed via significant correlations with the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), while discriminant validity was supported through correlations with the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) and EQ-5D-3 L. Verbal memory and abstract thinking showed a tendency toward significance in their association with pain scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Dutch KPPS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing pain in Dutch patients with PD, though its structure differs from the original. These differences may reflect variability in pain perception or classification, highlighting the need for further research integrating the PD-PCS framework to refine pain assessment in PD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Neurology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"214\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12096760/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-025-04222-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-025-04222-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:帕金森氏病(PD)患者的疼痛常被误诊,因此治疗不足。国王帕金森疼痛量表(KPPS)是为数不多的专门用于评估帕金森病患者疼痛的有效工具之一,但缺乏荷兰版本。本研究旨在验证荷兰患者的KPPS,并检查哪些认知功能与KPPS的理解有关。方法:将KPPS翻译成荷兰语,对70例PD患者进行内部一致性、收敛性和判别性效度检验。患者被诊断为帕金森病的平均时间为5.65年。认知功能评估采用蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)。结果:荷兰的KPPS量表具有可接受的信度(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69),但其因子结构与原量表不同。通过与数值评定量表(NRS)的显著相关证实了趋同效度,而通过与非运动症状量表(NMSS)和eq - 5d - 3l的显著相关证实了区别效度。结论:荷兰KPPS是评估荷兰PD患者疼痛的一种可靠有效的工具,尽管其结构与原始的不同。这些差异可能反映了疼痛感知或分类的可变性,强调了进一步研究整合PD- pcs框架以完善PD疼痛评估的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of the Dutch version of the King's Parkinson's disease pain scale.

Background: Pain in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD)is often underdiagnosed and, therefore, undertreated. The King's Parkinson's Pain Scale (KPPS) is one of the few validated tools specifically designed to assess pain in patients with Parkinson's disease but lacks a Dutch version. This study aims to validate the KPPS for patients in the Netherlands and to examine which cognitive functions are related to the comprehension of the KPPS.

Methods: The KPPS was translated into Dutch and validated in 70 patients with PD through internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity testing. Patients had been diagnosed with PD for an average of 5.65 years. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

Results: The Dutch KPPS showed acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.69), though its factor structure differed from the original. Convergent validity was confirmed via significant correlations with the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), while discriminant validity was supported through correlations with the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) and EQ-5D-3 L. Verbal memory and abstract thinking showed a tendency toward significance in their association with pain scores.

Conclusion: The Dutch KPPS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing pain in Dutch patients with PD, though its structure differs from the original. These differences may reflect variability in pain perception or classification, highlighting the need for further research integrating the PD-PCS framework to refine pain assessment in PD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Neurology
BMC Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
428
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Neurology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of neurological disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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