The Sensation and Pain Rating Scale: easy to use, clear to interpret, and responsive to clinical change.

Background: The Sensation and Pain Rating Scale (SPARS) allows rating of non-painful as well as painful percepts. While it performs well in the experimental context, its clinical utility is untested. This prospective, repeated-measures study mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the utility and performance of the SPARS in a clinical context, and to compare it with the widely used 11-point NRS for pain. Methods: People presenting for outpatient physiotherapy (n = 121) provided ratings on the SPARS and NRS at first consultation, before and after sham and active clinical interventions, and at follow-up consultation. Clinicians (n = 9) reported each scale's usability and interpretability using Likert-type scales and free text, and answered additional questions with free text. Each data type was initially analysed separately: quantitative data were visualised and the ES II metric was used to estimate SPARS internal responsiveness; qualitative data were analysed with a reflexive inductive thematic approach. Data types were then integrated for triangulation and complementarity. Results: The SPARS was well received and considered easy to use, after initial familiarisation. Clinicians favoured the SPARS over the NRS for clarity of interpretation and inter-rater reliability. SPARS sensitivity to change was good (ESII=0.9; 95%CI: 0.75-1.10). The greater perceptual range of the SPARS was deemed especially relevant in the later phases of recovery, when pain may recede into discomfort that still warrants clinical attention. Conclusion: The SPARS is a promising tool for assessing patient percept, with strong endorsement from clinicians for its clarity and superior perceptual scope.

Item development and pre-testing of an Osteoarthritis Conceptualisation Questionnaire to assess knowledge and beliefs in people with knee pain.

Many people with osteoarthritis hold beliefs that physical activity is unhelpful or dangerous for their joints, despite high-level evidence suggesting otherwise. Recent advances in scientific understanding of osteoarthritis have led to new treatments that target an individual's understanding both of their condition and the importance of best-practice management strategies, such as physical activity. Conceptual change has been proposed as an important mechanism by which cognitive interventions, such as pain science education, may reduce pain and improve function. There are currently no specific assessments of osteoarthritis conceptualisation to determine the effectiveness of cognitive interventions in effecting conceptual change in people with knee osteoarthritis. Therefore, we aimed to develop an item bank, as the first phase of developing a questionnaire to assess people's conceptualisations about their knee osteoarthritis and the role of physical activity in managing their osteoarthritis. Using a guideline-informed mixed method design, a panel of experts identified domains relevant to conceptualisation about knee osteoarthritis and physical activity (knowledge, beliefs, understanding) based upon available evidence. The panel created 33 provisional items. Qualitative and quantitative pretesting were used to explore how people with knee osteoarthritis understood the provisional items. Eighteen people with knee osteoarthritis completed cognitive interviews about their comprehension of the wording/grammar of each provisional item. The provisional item bank was field tested with 100 people with knee osteoarthritis. Readability was adequate with a Flesch reading ease score of 57.7. Although 14.7% used the 'Strongly agree' response option, only 3.4% of responses used the 'Strongly disagree' option, suggesting possible response bias. Predictive quality testing identified relevant modifications to the questionnaire instructions. The panel of experts appraised the qualitative data to assess whether and how items should be modified to address the problems identified, resulting in a final item bank of 45 items that can be evaluated for psychometric properties in future research.

Feasibility and pilot testing of a personalized eHealth intervention for pain science education and self-management for breast cancer survivors with persistent pain: a mixed-method study.

PURPOSE: Here, we describe the development and pilot study of a personalized eHealth intervention containing a pain science education program and self-management support strategies regarding pain and pain-related functioning in female survivors of breast cancer. First, we aimed to evaluate the eHealth intervention's acceptability, comprehensibility, and satisfaction; second, we aimed to assess its preliminary efficacy. METHODS: A mixed-method study design was used. Breast cancer survivors with persistent pain were recruited. After 6 weeks of engagement with the eHealth intervention, acceptability, comprehensibility, and satisfaction were measured quantitatively with a self-constructed questionnaire and described qualitatively using focus groups. A joint display was used to present the meta-interferences between data. Efficacy was assessed via mixed effects models with repeated measures (outcomes assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks). RESULTS: Twenty-nine women with persistent pain after breast cancer surgery participated. Overall, the eHealth program was well received and experienced as easy to use and helpful. The eHealth intervention seems useful as an adjunct to comprehensive cancer aftercare. Efficacy estimates suggested a significant improvement in pain-related functioning, physical functioning, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: A personalized eHealth intervention appears valuable for persistent pain management after breast cancer surgery. A large controlled clinical trial to determine effectiveness, and a full process evaluation, seems warranted.

Treating persistent pain after breast cancer: practice gaps and future directions.

This paper discusses the growing problem of persisting pain after successful treatment of breast cancer and presents recommendations for improving pain-related outcomes for this group. We discuss the dominant treatment approach for persisting pain post-breast cancer treatment and draw contrasts with contemporary treatment approaches to persistent pain in non-cancer-related populations. We discuss modern application of the biopsychosocial model of pain and the notion of variable sensitivity within the pain system, moment by moment and over time. We present the implications of increasing sensitivity over time for treatment selection and implementation. By drawing on transformative changes in treatment approaches to persistent non-cancer-related pain, we describe the potentially powerful role that an intervention called pain science education, which is now recommended in clinical guidelines for musculoskeletal pain, may play in improving pain and disability outcomes after successful breast cancer treatment. Finally, we present several research recommendations that centre around adaptation of the content and delivery models of contemporary pain science education, to the post-breast cancer context.

Implicit Motor Imagery of the Foot and Hand in People with Achilles Tendinopathy: A Left Right Judgement Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if impairment in motor imagery processes is present in Achilles tendinopathy (AT), as demonstrated by a reduced ability to quickly and accurately identify the laterality (left-right judgement) of a pictured limb. Additionally, this study aimed to use a novel data pooling approach to combine data collected at 3 different sites via meta-analytical techniques that allow exploration of heterogeneity. DESIGN: Multi-site case-control study. METHODS: Three independent studies with similar protocols were conducted by separate research groups. Each study-site evaluated left/right judgement performance for images of feet and hands using Recognise© software and compared performance between people with AT and healthy controls. Results from each study-site were independently collated, then combined in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 126 participants (40 unilateral, 22 bilateral AT cases, 61 controls) were included. There were no differences between AT cases and controls for hand image accuracy and reaction time. Contrary to the hypothesis, there were no differences in performance between those with AT and controls for foot image reaction time, however there were conflicting findings for foot accuracy, based on four separate analyses. There were no differences between the affected and unaffected sides in people with unilateral AT. CONCLUSIONS: Impairments in motor imagery performance for hands were not found in this study, and we found inconsistent results for foot accuracy. This contrasts to studies in persistent pain of limbs, face and knee osteoarthritis, and suggests that differences in pathoetiology or patient demographics may uniquely influence proprioceptive representation.

Development and Psychometric Testing of the Japanese Version of the Fremantle Neck Awareness Questionnaire: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Contemporary theories of pain suggest that how the body is perceived is central to the emergence of pain. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) was developed to assess body-perception specific to the back in people with chronic low back pain. However, there is no comprehensive measure to quantify self-perception of the painful area in Japanese people with neck pain. This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of a self-perception questionnaire specific to the neck and evaluate the validity and reliability of the scale using Rasch analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Fremantle Neck Awareness Questionnaire (FreNAQ-J) was developed by modifying the FreBAQ-J. One hundred people with chronic neck pain and fifty-six matched healthy controls completed the questionnaire. Rasch analysis was used to evaluate targeting, category order, unidimensionality, person fit, internal consistency, differential item functioning, and differential test functioning in the neck pain population. Validity was investigated by examining the relationship between the FreNAQ-J and clinical status. RESULTS: People with chronic neck pain endorsed FreNAQ-J items with greater frequency than healthy controls. FreNAQ-J did not reject the null hypothesis of fitting the Rasch model, had acceptable internal consistency and good test-retest reliability. Summed FreNAQ-J scores were significantly correlated with pain intensity, disability, pain-related catastrophizing and fear of movement. CONCLUSION: The individual items of the FreNAQ-J can be validly summed to provide a score of self-perception. The FreNAQ-J is the first scale developed for comprehensively evaluating disturbed body perception in Japanese patients with chronic neck pain.

Development and validation of a shoulder-specific body-perception questionnaire in people with persistent shoulder pain.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that people with persistent shoulder pain exhibit findings consistent with the presence of sensorimotor dysfunction. Sensorimotor impairments can manifest in a variety of ways, and further developing our understanding of sensorimotor dysfunction in shoulder pain may improve current models of care. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) has been developed to assess disturbed body perception specific to the back. The purpose of the present study was to develop a shoulder-specific self-perception questionnaire and evaluate the questionnaire in people with persistent shoulder pain. METHODS: The Fremantle Shoulder Awareness Questionnaire (FreSHAQ-J) was developed by modifying the FreBAQ. One hundred and twelve consecutive people with persistent shoulder pain completed the FreSHAQ-J. Thirty participants completed the FreSHAQ-J again two-weeks later to assess test-retest reliability. Rasch analysis was used to assess the psychometric properties of the FreSHAQ-J. Associations between FreSHAQ-J total score and clinical status was explored using correlational analysis. RESULTS: The FreSHAQ-J has acceptable category order, unidimensionality, no misfitting items, and excellent test-retest reliability. The FreSHAQ-J was moderately correlated with disability and pain catastrophization. CONCLUSIONS: The FreSHAQ-J fits the Rasch measurement model well and is suitable for use with people with shoulder pain. Given the relationship between the FreSHAQ-J score and clinical status, change in body perception may be worth assessing when managing patients with shoulder pain.

Development and preliminary validation of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire for Clinicians.

Background and Aims Higher chronic pain acceptance is associated with lower pain and disability. Clinician beliefs are associated with patients' beliefs. This study therefore aimed to develop the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire for Clinicians (CPAQ-C) to measure clinicians' beliefs regarding the importance of levels of acceptance in patients with chronic pain, and to examine the questionnaire's psychometric properties. Methods Phase one: the CPAQ-C was adapted from the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire. Data on 162 completed questionnaires were analysed using Rasch analysis. Phase Two: the cohort completed the Healthcare Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale, and the association (Pearson's correlation co-efficient) between these questionnaires examined to assist CPAQ-C validation. Twenty-four participants completed the CPAQ-C one-week later. Test re-test reliability was examined using intraclass correlation co-efficient (2,1) and standard error of measurement. Phase Three: to examine responsiveness 17 clinicians attending a workshop on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy completed the CPAQ-C before and immediately after the workshop, and six-months later. The Skillings Mack test was used to determine whether CPAQ-C scores differed across different timepoints. Results Rasch analysis supported two subscales: activity engagement and pain willingness. Five poorly functioning items were excluded. There was good correlation between the CPAQ-C and Healthcare Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (-.54). The CPAQ-C demonstrated good reliability (ICC (2,1): .81; standard error of measurement: 4.76). There was significant improvement in CPAQ-C scores following the workshop (p=<.001). Conclusions The CPAQ-C appears a valid, reliable and responsive measure of clinicians' beliefs regarding the importance of levels of acceptance in patients with chronic pain. Implications Where the CPAQ-C reveals that clinicians have low perceived levels of importance regarding acceptance in patients with chronic pain those clinicians may benefit from specific education, however, this requires further examination.

Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire.

Metacognitions, which are beliefs about our own thinking processes, can modulate worry and rumination and thereby influence emotional distress. This study aimed to develop a self-report measure of unhelpful pain-related metacognitions which might serve as a clinical and research tool to better understand pain catastrophizing, a significant risk factor for adverse pain outcomes. Two phases of validation are presented. Phase 1 reports on how the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire (PMQ) was empirically developed through a qualitative study of 20 people with chronic back (n = 15) or knee (n = 5) pain in secondary or tertiary care and then validated in a large internet sample of people experiencing pain (N = 864). Rasch analysis yielded a 21-item scale with two dimensions (positive and negative metacognition) assessing how useful and problematic people believe rumination about pain to be, respectively. In Phase 2, further validation using a new sample (N = 510) replicated initial findings. Both PMQ subscales have good retest reliability (r = 0.76, r = 0.72) and internal consistency (0.86, 0.87). They correlate negatively with mindfulness and positively with pain intensity, disability, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, rumination, and metacognition. The PMQ also predicts unique variance in catastrophizing when other variables are controlled and predicts 'patient' status for pain catastrophizing. Sensitivity analysis yielded preliminary suggestions for clinically meaningful cut-offs. Unhelpful pain metacognitions can be validly and reliably measured using a self-report instrument. Future studies using the PMQ might shed new light on pain-related thinking processes to develop better interventions for people prone to worry and rumination about their pain.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty. METHODS: Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty. METHODS: Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.

Was That Painful or Nonpainful? The Sensation and Pain Rating Scale Performs Well in the Experimental Context.

In experiments on pain, participants are frequently exposed to nonpainful and painful stimuli; however, the conventional pain-rating scales lack a nonpainful range and a clear point of transition from nonpainful to painful events. The Sensation and Pain Rating Scale (SPARS) assesses the full stimulus intensity range, extending from no sensation (rating: -50) to worst pain imaginable (rating: +50), and it explicitly identifies pain threshold (rating: 0). Here, we tested the SPARS in 2 experiments by using laser heat stimuli to establish its stimulus-response characteristics (Experiment 1, N = 19, 13 stimulus intensities applied 26 times each across a 1-4 J range), and compared it to 0 to 100 scales that assess nonpainful (0: no sensation, 100: pain) and painful (0: no pain, 100: worst pain imaginable) events (Experiment 2, N = 7, 9 stimulus intensities applied 36 times each across a 1.5-4.5 J range). Despite high inter- and intraindividual variations, we found a reasonably consistent curvilinear stimulus-response relationship (the curve flattens around pain threshold), with stable response characteristics across the range of the scale. The SPARS ratings transformed to a 0 to 100 range tended to be lower than the 0 to 100 pain rating scale in the noxious stimulus intensity range and greater than the 0 to 100 nonpainful sensation scale in the non-noxious stimulus range, likely reflecting differences in scale dimensionality. The SPARS overcomes limitations in scale range inherent to conventional pain rating scales. As such, it is well suited to experimental studies that must quantify a wider range of perceptual intensity or distinguish between painful and nonpainful events. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the stimulus-response characteristics of a new scale designed to allow participants to rate a range of nonpainful and painful stimuli. The scale could be useful for research that involves exposing participants to a range of stimulation intensities or requires a clear distinction between nonpainful and painful events.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the Revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese language / Adaptação transcultural do Questionário Neurofisiológico da Dor revisado para língua portuguesa do Brasil

ABSTRACT Objective To perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire for the Brazilian population (NPQ-BR). Methods A translation and cross-cultural adaptation study were conducted in 11 stages according to standard procedures. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha test (α). Results Four translators, six experts, twenty-one patients and ten physiotherapists participated in the study. The NPQ-BR was obtained after seven versions. The expert committee adapted four out of twelve items (item 1, 3, 11, and 12) to adapt the content of the instrument to the Brazilian context. The pre-test phase showed good internal consistency (α = 0.63). The comparison of the correct answers of the questionnaire between the groups (physical therapist group mean = 7.0 ± 1.7; patient group mean = 3.7 ± 2.1; p < 0.01) confirmed the discriminative validity of the NPQ-BR. Conclusion The Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire was cross-culturally adapted into a Brazilian context and can be used to assess the level of neurophysiological knowledge of pain of Brazilian patients. The interpretation of the results of the NPQ-BR must be taken with caution due to the absence of a robust validation methodology of the instrument.

RESUMO Objetivo Realizar a adaptação transcultural do Questionário Neurofisiológico de Dor (QND) para a população brasileira. Métodos Um estudo de tradução e adaptação transcultural foi conduzido em 11 estágios de acordo com procedimentos padronizados. Foi realizada estatística descritiva e inferencial. A consistência interna do questionário foi avaliada pelo teste de Alfa de Cronbach (α). Resultados Participaram do estudo quatro tradutores, seis especialistas, vinte e um pacientes e dez fisioterapeutas. A versão brasileira do QND foi obtida após sete versões. O comitê de especialistas adaptou quatro dos doze itens (item 1, 3, 11 e 12) para ajustar o conteúdo do instrumento ao contexto brasileiro. A fase de pré-teste evidenciou boa consistência interna (α = 0,63). A comparação dos acertos dos itens do questionário entre os grupos (média dos fisioterapeutas = 7,0 ± 1,7; média dos pacientes = 3,7 ± 2,1; p < 0,01) confirmou a validade discriminativa da versão brasileira do QND. Conclusão O Questionário Neurofisiológico de Dor revisado foi adaptado para o contexto brasileiro e pode ser utilizado para avaliar o nível de conhecimento neurofisiológico da dor de pacientes brasileiros. A interpretação dos resultados da versão brasileira do QND deve ser feita com cautela devido à ausência de metodologia robusta de validação do instrumento.

Clinimetric Testing of the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is a self-report measure of 15 items. Previous studies have used the LSIQ as a measure of clinical instability; however, a comprehensive evaluation of its clinimetric properties has not been conducted. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the LSIQ in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP). METHODS: In this clinical measurement study, the authors included patients with nonspecific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Australia. Rasch analysis was conducted to assess item hierarchy, targeting, unidimensionality, person fit, internal consistency, and differential item functioning. The researchers assessed test-retest reliability of total scores and individual item scores, as well as convergent and divergent validity. RESULTS: A total of 107 participants with LBP (60 men and 47 women) were recruited. The results were variable. The LSIQ appeared to constitute a unidimensional measure, targeted the sample well, and showed adequate test-retest reliability. However, the scale had poor internal consistency, did not appear to function as an interval-level measure, and had unclear construct validity. Although no items appeared to be redundant, several items were biased by factors other than the proposed construct of the measure. CONCLUSION: The LSIQ does not seem to be ready to be implemented in clinical practice and may require theoretical reconsideration. Although the LSIQ provided satisfactory estimates for some clinimetric features, the authors do not consider the instrument to be useful as an interval-level measure but rather as an index. Future studies are needed to investigate whether the LSIQ could measure clinical instability or some other construct. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(12):915-922. Epub 22 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7866.

Rasch analysis suggested that items from the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist can be summed to create a score.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to construct and evaluate a summary score of reporting completeness based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We included 200 reports published in 2013 randomly selected from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. We summed the scores for the 12 items for the intervention and control groups for each trial to create a summary score from 0 to 24. Rasch analysis was used to investigate the item hierarchy, category function and reliability of the TIDieR checklist and determine the extent to which the summary score can be considered an interval-level measure. RESULTS: The data fit the Rasch model suggesting the summary score is able to assess the completeness of reporting. The items appeared to target the study sample well (average report measure was 0.48 [0.87] compared to the average item measure of 0.0 [1.82]), and progressed in a logical manner, suggesting the summary score can be used as a single variable. The low internal consistency (0.62) suggests the summary score may only be able to discriminate between the least and most detailed reports. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of the TIDieR summary score; however, we encourage the replication of our study in an independent data set.

Validation of the Japanese Version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire in Patients with Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in the role of disturbed body perception in people with persistent pain problems such as chronic low back pain (CLBP). A questionnaire, the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ), was recently developed as a simple and quick way of assessing disturbed perceptual awareness of the back in people with CLBP and appears to have acceptable psychometric properties. The aim of the present study was to develop a Japanese version of the FreBAQ (FreBAQ-J) and evaluate its psychometric properties in a sample of Japanese people with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: Translation of the FreBAQ into Japanese was conducted using a forward-backward method. One hundred participants with LBP completed the resultant FreBAQ-J. A subset of the participants completed the FreBAQ-J again 2 weeks later. Validity was investigated by examining the relationship between the FreBAQ-J and clinical valuables. Rasch analysis was used to assess targeting, category ordering, unidimensionality, person fit, internal consistency, and differential item functioning. RESULTS: The FreBAQ-J was significantly correlated with pain in motion, disability, pain-related catastrophizing, fear of movement, and anxiety symptomatology. The FreBAQ-J had acceptable internal consistency, a minor departure from unidimensionality, and good test-retest reliability, and was functional on the category rating scale. CONCLUSIONS: The FreBAQ-J has acceptable psychometric properties and is suitable for use in people with LBP. Participants with high levels of disturbed body perception are well targeted by the scale. The functioning of one item (item 8) was poor. Further study is warranted to confirm if this item should be excluded.

Tactile acuity testing at the neck: A comparison of methods.

BACKGROUND: Interest in measurement of tactile acuity in musculoskeletal practice has emerged following its link to functional reorganization of the somatosensory cortex in ongoing pain states. Several tactile acuity measurement methods have been described but have not been thoroughly investigated in the cervical region. OBJECTIVE: This study examined reliability, concurrent validity and responsiveness of four tests of tactile acuity-Two-point discrimination, Point-to-point, Graphesthesia, and Localisation tests-at the cervical region. METHOD: Forty-two healthy participants were included. In Part 1 (n = 22), participants' tactile acuity was assessed at two time points, 30 min apart, to determine the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of each of the tests. In Part 2 (n = 20), participants received five daily tactile training sessions, delivered via a vibro-tactile device. Tactile acuity was assessed pre- and post-training to examine responsiveness of each test. RESULTS: Two-point discrimination demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.85, SEM = 3.7 mm), Point-to-point and Localisation tests demonstrated good reliability (ICC = 0.60, SEM = 2.8 mm; ICC = 0.60, SEM = 8.8%), and Graphesthesia demonstrated fair reliability (ICC = 0.48, SEM = 1.9/20). There was no significant correlation among measures. Only Graphesthesia failed to show responsiveness to change following training. CONCLUSION: The reliability of Two-point discrimination appears superior to other examined tests of tactile acuity, however measurement variability should be considered. Two-point discrimination, Point-to-point, and Localisation tests appear responsive to change, although testing in clinical samples is needed. The lack of concurrent validity among tests suggests that they cannot be used interchangeably.

Development and psychometric properties of knee-specific body-perception questionnaire in people with knee osteoarthritis: The Fremantle Knee Awareness Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated that pain associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a complex phenomenon that involves various contributors. People with knee OA exhibit symptoms of impaired body-perception, including reduced tactile acuity, impairments in limb laterality recognition, and degraded proprioceptive acuity. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) was developed to assess body-perception specific to the back in people with chronic low back pain. The aim of this study was to develop and assess the psychometric properties of a knee-specific version of the FreBAQ-J (FreKAQ-J), determine whether people with knee pain experience perceptual impairments and investigate the relationship between disturbed self-perception and clinical status. METHODS: Sixty-five people with knee OA completed the FreKAQ-J. A subset of the participants completed the FreKAQ-J again two-weeks later. Rasch analysis was used to assess item order, targeting, category ordering, unidimensionality, person fit, internal consistency, and differential item functioning. Validity was investigated by examining the relationship between the FreKAQ-J and clinical valuables. RESULTS: The FreKAQ-J had acceptable internal consistency, unidimensionality, good test-retest reliability, and was functional on the category rating scale. The FreKAQ-J was significantly correlated with pain in motion, disability, pain-related catastrophizing, fear of movement, and anxiety symptomatology. CONCLUSIONS: We developed FreKAQ-J by modifying the FreBAQ-J. The FreKAQ-J fits the Rasch measurement model well and is suitable for use in people with knee OA. Altered body perception may be worth evaluating when managing people with knee OA.