Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Italian version of the craniofacial pain and disability inventory in patients with chronic temporomandibular joint disorders.

BACKGROUND: To develop an Italian version of the Craniofacial Pain Disability Inventory (CFPDI-I) and investigate its psychometric abilities in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). METHODS: The CFPDI was translated following international standards. The psychometric analyses included reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test/retest stability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC); construct validity was investigated by matching (a priori hypotheses) the CFPDI-I with the Italian Neck Disability Index (NDI-I), a pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS), the Italian Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS-I), the Italian Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-I), and the Italian Migraine Disability Assessment Score Questionnaire (MIDAS) (Pearson's correlation). Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients with chronic TMD completed the tool. The questionnaire was internally consistent (α = 0.95) and its stability was good (ICCs = 0.91). As hypothesised, validity figures showed CFPDI-I strongly correlated with the NDI-I (r = 0.66, p < 0.05) and moderately correlated with the NRS (r = 0.48, p < 0.05), PCS (r = 0.37, p < 0.05), TSKI (r = 0.35, p < 0.05) and MIDAS (r = 0.47, p < 0.05). Similar estimates were shown by CFPDI-I subscales. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-culturally adapted version of the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CFPDI-I) showed satisfactory psychometric properties that replicate those of the original version and, therefore, can be implemented in the clinical assessment of Italian people affected by TMD.

Explicit and Implicit Own's Body and Space Perception in Painful Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Background: Pain and body perception are essentially two subjective mutually influencing experiences. However, in the field of musculoskeletal disorders and rheumatic diseases we lack of a comprehensive knowledge about the relationship between body perception dysfunctions and pain or disability. We systematically mapped the literature published about the topics of: (a) somatoperception; (b) body ownership; and (c) perception of space, analysing the relationship with pain and disability. The results were organized around the two main topics of the assessment and treatment of perceptual dysfunctions. Methods: This scoping review followed the six-stage methodology suggested by Arksey and O'Malley. Ten electronic databases and grey literature were systematically searched. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews was used for reporting results. Two reviewers with different background, independently performed study screening and selection, and one author performed data extraction, that was checked by a second reviewer. Results: Thirty-seven studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The majority of studies (68%) concerned the assessment methodology, and the remaining 32% investigated the effects of therapeutic interventions. Research designs, methodologies adopted, and settings varied considerably across studies. Evidence of distorted body experience were found mainly for explicit somatoperception, especially in studies adopting self-administered questionnaire and subjective measures, highlighting in some cases the presence of sub-groups with different perceptual features. Almost half of the intervention studies (42%) provided therapeutic approaches combining more than one perceptual task, or sensory-motor tasks together with perceptual strategies, thus it was difficult to estimate the relative effectiveness of each single therapeutic component. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to systematically map and summarize this research area in the field of musculoskeletal disorders and rheumatic diseases. Although methodological limitations limit the validity of the evidence obtained, some strategies of assessment tested and therapeutic strategies proposed represent useful starting points for future research. This review highlights preliminary evidence, strengths, and limitations of the literature published about the research questions, identifying key points that remain opened to be addressed, and make suggestions for future research studies. Body representation, as well as pain perception and treatment, can be better understood if an enlarged perspective including body and space perception is considered.

Explicit and implicit experience of own's body in painful musculoskeletal disorders and rheumatic diseases: A scoping review protocol of available quantitative and qualitative evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Our body experience is organized at twofold levels: perceptual and cognitive-emotional. These higher-order processes are clearly different from the primary sensory processing of somatic stimuli (somatosensation). However, most of the available studies have mainly investigated the mechanisms of somatosensation. Moreover, disturbances of our body experience have been documented in some pathological conditions of interest for rehabilitative interventions, but their clinical role and relevance is yet to be clarified. Because in this field we have limited knowledge on perceptual and cognitive body experience, there emerges a need to better clarify this matter. The aim of the present scoping review is to systematically map this topic and to examine the magnitude and the nature of the available evidences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The scoping review will be performed following the six-stage methodology suggested by Arksey and O'Malley. Ten electronic databases will be investigated since their inception. The search strategy will be peer reviewed by PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist as a quality assurance step. All records retrieved will be screened by two independent reviewers. The Population, Concept, and Context method will be adopted for eligibility criteria and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses will be used for results reporting. Two reviewers with different background will perform the search process independently. One author will extract data, checked by a second reviewer checking the matching with the research questions and goals. Any disagreements will be solved by a third reviewer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for scoping reviews. Dissemination will include submission to peer-reviewed journal and presentations in conferences in the area of rehabilitation.