4.3 Article

Reliability of the Italian version of the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain Basic Data Set

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 128-133

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41393-018-0171-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health [RF-2011-02346770]
  2. Italian affiliate society at the International Spinal Cord Society (ISCoS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design Multicentric prospective psychometric study. Objective To provide a translation of the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain Basic Data Set (ISCIPBDS) for Italian persons and to evaluate the interrater reliability of the translated version. Setting Ten Italian rehabilitation centres specialized in spinal injury care. Methods The initial translation was performed by two medical doctors who had an in-depth knowledge of spinal cord injury (SCI), and then a back translation (from Italian to English) was given to an accredited agency. Sixty-six participants with SCI (53 men, 13 women; mean +/- SD age: 53.4 +/- 16.0 years) were evaluated by means of the Italian version of the ISCIPBDS by two different examiners. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or Cohen's Kappa (kappa) was calculated to test the interrater agreement for the test-retest cases. Results All 66 participants had at least one pain problem and 34% of them had only one type of pain. A good interrater agreement was obtained in terms of number of pain (ICC = 0.781), type of pain (kappa = 0.683), pain intensity (ICC = 0.798), correspondence of pain localization (kappa = 0.750), and the value of the pain interference in day-to-day activities, overall mood and night's sleep (ICC = 0.827, ICC = 0.861 and ICC = 0.724, respectively). Eventually a prominent prevalence of neuropathic pain was recorded (64% from the first examiner and 62% from the second one). Conclusions The authors propose the Italian version of ISCIPBDS that can be used for research and clinical evaluation of pain in SCI persons; it shows a significant interrater reliability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据