IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0194358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the painDETECT questionnaire in the assessment of neuropathic pain

Author

Listed:
  • Amani Abu-Shaheen
  • Shehu Yousef
  • Muhammad Riaz
  • Abdullah Nofal
  • Isamme AlFayyad
  • Sarfaraz Khan
  • Humariya Heena

Abstract

Introduction: Neuropathic pain (NP) can cause substantial suffering and, therefore, it must be diagnosed and treated promptly. Diagnosis of NP can be difficult and if made by an expert pain physician is considered the gold standard, however where expert help may not be easily available, screening tools for NP can be used. The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) is a simple screening tool and has been widely used in several languages. We developed an Arabic version of PD-Q and tested its validity and reliability. Methods: The original PD-Q was translated into the Arabic language by a team of experts. The translated version of the PD-Q was administered to the study population, which included patients having moderate to severe pain for at least three months. Reliability of the Arabic version was evaluated by an intra-class-correlation coefficient (ICC) between pre- and post-measures and Cronbach’s α values. Validity was measured by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Expert pain physician diagnosis was considered as the gold standard for comparing the diagnostic accuracy. Results: A total of 375 patients were included in the study, of which 153 (40.8%) patients were diagnosed with NP and 222 [59.2%] patients had nociceptive pain. The ICC between pre- and post-PD-Q scale total scores for the overall sample, NP group, and NocP group was 0.970 (95% CI, 0.964–0.976), 0.963 (95% CI, 0.949–0.973), and 0.962 (95% CI, 0.951–0.971), respectively. The Cronbach’s α values for the post-assessment measures in the overall sample, NP group, and nociceptive pain group, were 0.764, 0.684, and 0.746, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.775 (95% CI, 0.725–0.825) for the PD-Q total score. Conclusion: The Arabic version of the PD-Q showed good reliability and validity in the detection of NP component in patients with chronic pain.

Suggested Citation

  • Amani Abu-Shaheen & Shehu Yousef & Muhammad Riaz & Abdullah Nofal & Isamme AlFayyad & Sarfaraz Khan & Humariya Heena, 2018. "Testing the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the painDETECT questionnaire in the assessment of neuropathic pain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194358
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194358
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194358&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0194358?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194358. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.