挪威版PainDETECT的可靠性:一项重测研究

IF 1.5 Q3 REHABILITATION European Journal of Physiotherapy Pub Date : 2021-11-17 DOI:10.1080/21679169.2021.2001567
A. Melsom Myhre, L. Strand
{"title":"挪威版PainDETECT的可靠性:一项重测研究","authors":"A. Melsom Myhre, L. Strand","doi":"10.1080/21679169.2021.2001567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives The PainDETECT Questionnaire (PD-Q) is a self-reported questionnaire aiming to assist in detecting neuropathic pain in individual patients. However, measurement properties of the Norwegian translated version should be examined, and the aim of the present study was to examine its test-retest reliability. Methods A total of 107 patients were initially recruited to the study from physiotherapy clinics. After screening for inclusion- and exclusion criteria, 67 participants remained for examining reliability of separate items. They were to fill out the PD-Q twice at an interval of 14 days. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) of total scores, and Kappa statistics and percentage of agreement of separate items and screening data were used in the analysis. Results Fifty-two participants filled out all items correctly, a prerequisite for determining the reliability of the total score and screening category. The ICC for the total score was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.73–0.91), SEM 2.5. The Kappa value for the screening category was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.31–0.69), and percentage of agreement 69%. Single items were found with reasonable to substantial reliability. Conclusion The Norwegian version of the PD-Q showed good test-retest reliability for the total score, but only moderate reliability of the screening category classifying the likelihood of neuropathic pain. The high number of missing answers indicates that some guidance from a health care professional is needed when filling out the questionnaire.","PeriodicalId":45694,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"25 1","pages":"106 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of the Norwegian version of PainDETECT: a test-retest study\",\"authors\":\"A. Melsom Myhre, L. Strand\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21679169.2021.2001567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives The PainDETECT Questionnaire (PD-Q) is a self-reported questionnaire aiming to assist in detecting neuropathic pain in individual patients. However, measurement properties of the Norwegian translated version should be examined, and the aim of the present study was to examine its test-retest reliability. Methods A total of 107 patients were initially recruited to the study from physiotherapy clinics. After screening for inclusion- and exclusion criteria, 67 participants remained for examining reliability of separate items. They were to fill out the PD-Q twice at an interval of 14 days. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) of total scores, and Kappa statistics and percentage of agreement of separate items and screening data were used in the analysis. Results Fifty-two participants filled out all items correctly, a prerequisite for determining the reliability of the total score and screening category. The ICC for the total score was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.73–0.91), SEM 2.5. The Kappa value for the screening category was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.31–0.69), and percentage of agreement 69%. Single items were found with reasonable to substantial reliability. Conclusion The Norwegian version of the PD-Q showed good test-retest reliability for the total score, but only moderate reliability of the screening category classifying the likelihood of neuropathic pain. The high number of missing answers indicates that some guidance from a health care professional is needed when filling out the questionnaire.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"106 - 113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21679169.2021.2001567\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21679169.2021.2001567","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要目的疼痛检测问卷(PD-Q)是一种自我报告的问卷,旨在帮助检测个体患者的神经性疼痛。然而,应该检查挪威语翻译版本的测量特性,本研究的目的是检查其重新测试的可靠性。方法首先从物理治疗诊所招募107名患者进行研究。在筛选纳入和排除标准后,67名参与者留下来检查单独项目的可靠性。他们每隔14次填写两次PD-Q 天。分析中使用了总分的组内相关系数(ICC)和标准测量误差(SEM),以及Kappa统计数据和单独项目与筛选数据的一致性百分比。结果52名参与者正确填写了所有项目,这是确定总分和筛查类别可靠性的先决条件。总分的ICC为0.84(95%置信区间0.73–0.91),SEM为2.5。筛查类别的Kappa值为0.50(95%置信区间0.31–0.69),一致性百分比为69%。发现单个项目具有合理到实质的可靠性。结论挪威版的PD-Q对总分显示出良好的重测可靠性,但对神经性疼痛可能性的筛查类别只有中等的可靠性。大量遗漏的答案表明,在填写问卷时需要卫生保健专业人员的一些指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reliability of the Norwegian version of PainDETECT: a test-retest study
Abstract Objectives The PainDETECT Questionnaire (PD-Q) is a self-reported questionnaire aiming to assist in detecting neuropathic pain in individual patients. However, measurement properties of the Norwegian translated version should be examined, and the aim of the present study was to examine its test-retest reliability. Methods A total of 107 patients were initially recruited to the study from physiotherapy clinics. After screening for inclusion- and exclusion criteria, 67 participants remained for examining reliability of separate items. They were to fill out the PD-Q twice at an interval of 14 days. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) of total scores, and Kappa statistics and percentage of agreement of separate items and screening data were used in the analysis. Results Fifty-two participants filled out all items correctly, a prerequisite for determining the reliability of the total score and screening category. The ICC for the total score was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.73–0.91), SEM 2.5. The Kappa value for the screening category was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.31–0.69), and percentage of agreement 69%. Single items were found with reasonable to substantial reliability. Conclusion The Norwegian version of the PD-Q showed good test-retest reliability for the total score, but only moderate reliability of the screening category classifying the likelihood of neuropathic pain. The high number of missing answers indicates that some guidance from a health care professional is needed when filling out the questionnaire.
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Utilisation of the Hip Disability and Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in physiotherapy following total hip and knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional survey. Unravelling the digital competence of students in physiotherapy education through the European digital competence framework Complementary strategies to improve the qualitative analysis: exemplified by our studies of physiotherapy in shoulder problems Beyond one size fits All - Personalised prevention strategies using physical activity: editorial Comparing treadmill and overground versions of the two-minute walk test in people with low back pain
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1