Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Argentine version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in patients with chronic low back pain.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Higher levels of catastrophizing were found in patients with LBP and this variable is associated with self-reported disability. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a self-report questionnaire that assesses catastrophizing in the presence of pain. Currently, an Argentine version of the PCS is not available. OBJECTIVE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the PCS into Argentine Spanish and test the psychometric properties of the new version with chronic LBP patients. STUDY DESIGN: Study of diagnostic accuracy/assessment scale. METHODS: The study was carried out in three consecutive phases following the COSMIN guidelines: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation. We included Argentine residents over 18 years with chronic LBP. We used the PCS and the Global rating of change (GROC) to assess the psychometric properties. RESULTS: No difficulties were present in the translation processes and the PCS-Arg was developed. The alfa Cronbach coefficient was 0.89. The standard error of measurement and the minimal detectable change were 5.4 and 15.1 points, respectively. In the explanatory factorial analysis 3 components were identified. For the construct validity, the correlation between the PCS-Arg and disability and pain were r = 0.35 and rho = 0.04, respectively. The mean PCS score was 29.9. The lowest and highest scores were 3 and 52 points, therefore, no roof or ceiling effects of the total score were observed. CONCLUSION: The PCS-Arg is a viable, reliable and valid tool for the assessment of catastrophizing in patients with chronic LBP.

Disability is associated with catastrophizing and not with pain intensity in patients with low back pain: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability at a global scale. The development and chronicity of LBP are influenced by multiple factors, and among them is catastrophizing. We are unaware of the impact that catastrophizing may have on pain and disability in our population. We also lack the tools that allow us to determine in which cases catastrophizing should be assessed. The primary objective is to compare the disability and pain intensity values at baseline in low back pain patients with high and low catastrophizing. The secondary objectives are to analyse the correlation between variables and determine disability variance, and develop a prediction model to identify patients with high catastrophizing. METHOD: This is a retrospective study. We included the baseline data of patients with LBP. A PCS score ≥ 23 was classified as "high catastrophizing." RESULTS: A total 121 medical sheets were analysed. Patients with high catastrophizing showed greater disability, with no differences in pain intensity. The PCS value explained 20% of the variance of disability, and pain was 1%. A cut-off point of 11 in the RMQ allowed us to identify patients with high and low catastrophizing, with an accuracy of 76.67%. CONCLUSION: LBP patients with high catastrophizing reported greater disability than those with low catastrophizing, with no differences as to pain intensity. The PCS was the most relevant variable to explain variability in the RMQ. The RMQ allowed us to identify patients with high and low catastrophizing.