Validation of the Spanish-language version of the Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer's Disease. / Estudio ROSA: validación de la versión española de la Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer's Disease.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer's Disease (ROSA) is a useful tool for evaluating and monitoring dementia patients. This study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of ROSA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Spanish multicentre study involving 39 researchers and including 237 patients with Alzheimer disease (78 mild, 79 moderate, and 80 severe). The patients were tested with the following: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Fototest, Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Blessed dementia scale, and a Spanish-language version of ROSA. A subsample of 40 subjects was retested in the 14 days following the initial evaluation. The construct validity was evaluated with the Spearman correlation coefficient (r), internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha (alpha), and test-retest reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: ROSA requires 13.8±7.4minutes to administer and its results show a significant association with the clinical stage of AD (mild, 116.7±23.1; moderate, 92.9±19.8; and severe, 64.3±22.6), and with results on the MMSE (r=0.68), Fototest (r=0.63), NPI (r=0.53), and Blessed dementia scale (r=-0.80). ROSA shows high internal consistency (alpha=0.90) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC0.97). CONCLUSION: The Spanish version of ROSA is a brief, valid, and reliable tool permitting overall evaluation of patients with dementia.

High prevalence of confirmed, but also of potential and believed, neuropathic pain in pain clinics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Epidemiological data about neuropathic pain are still scarce. A national survey, based on neurologic clinical diagnosis, was performed to determine its prevalence among patients attending pain clinics. METHODS: An epidemiological cross-sectional study involving pain clinics across all regions in Spain was carried out. Pain specialists evaluated the medical files and the clinical condition of patients attending their practices systematically during 1 day. They used the revised definition and grading system proposed in 2008 to decide whether a given patient had definite (i.e., confirmed), probable (potential) or possible (believed) neuropathic pain. Also, they provided a diagnostic label for neuropathic pain conditions and appraised treatment adequacy. RESULTS: In a single day, 178 pain specialists provided data from 2173 patients. Definite, probable and possible neuropathic pain was cited in 639 (29.4%), 304 (14.0%) and 97 (4.5%) patients, respectively. Almost two-thirds of these were women. A diagnostic label of primary pure central and/or peripheral neuropathic pain was cited in 344 (15.8%) patients. The most common diagnostic label (568 patients) was low back pain or sciatica causing mixed neuropathic pain. Definite neuropathic pain diagnosis was less likely in patients with mixed pain conditions and in women derived from primary care. Co-morbid depressive or anxiety symptoms were usual. CONCLUSIONS: Definite (confirmed) neuropathic pain alone was as prevalent as neuropathic pain ascertained with screening questionnaires in prior recent European studies. The clinical relevance of the surplus of patients with potential and believed neuropathic pain ascertained by clinicians is uncertain.

[Pain in Spanish rheumatology outpatient offices: EPIDOR epidemiological study]. / El dolor en las consultas de Reumatología españolas: estudio epidemiológico EPIDOR.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence and characteristics of rheumatologic pain in Spanish adult population cared in specialized rheumatology offices. DESIGN: Cross selection study in a population of patients cared in rheumatology offices of public Spanish hospitals. SUBJECTS: 1,134 patients selected through random sampling based on waiting lists of patients, during a period of 1 week, in rheumatology offices of each participating hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY: Reason behind the consultation (a new patient [NP] or a patient for revision [RP]), characteristics of the patient (sex, age, habits [alcohol/tobacco], marital status), location, type, intensity, duration, tolerance and management of pain; treatment (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) carried out; satisfaction with the treatment; and association with fibromyalgia. RESULTS: The prevalence of pain in NP was 98.6% and in RP 95.1%, with a global prevalence of 96%, predominating mainly in adult sedentary women with fibromyalgia. The frequency of acute pain was 20.9% and this of chronic pain 79.1% [corrected] The prevalence of fibromyalgia was 12% (2.2% in men, and 15.5% in women). The most prevalent pattern of current dominant pain was this of the mechanical type. More frequent associated pathologies were: hypertension (21.7%), depression (14.4%), gastrointestinal diseases (13.8%) and anxiety (13.4%). All variables analyzed in the study showed changes according to age, sex, and type of patient (NP or RP). Most used treatment was pharmacological; more than 57.6% of patients were receiving NSAIDs. In NP, medical prescriber of the treatment was first the general practitioner (56.1%) followed by the rheumatologist (14.1%); in PR the first one was the rheumatologist (69.9%) followed by the general practitioner (16.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the prevalence of the rheumatologic pain is very high, predominating mainly in adult women with fibromyalgia. Pain location, intensity, and type, associated pathology, and treatment vary according to age, sex, and type of patient. The most commonly used drugs for pain management were NSAIDs (58%); opiodes were only used in 6.4% of patients even though pain was intense in more than two-thirds.