Translating the Dutch walking stairs, walking ability and rising and sitting questionnaires into German and assessing their concurrent validity with VAS measures of pain and activities in daily living

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Dutch Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Rising and Sitting Questionnaires are three validated instruments to measure physical activity and limitations in daily living in patients with lower extremity disorders living at home of which no German equivalents are available. Our scope was to translate the Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Rising and Sitting Questionnaires into German and to verify its concurrent validity in the two domains pain and activities in daily living by comparing them with the corresponding measures on the Visual Analogue Scale.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We translated the Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Rising and Sitting Questionnaires according to published guidelines. Demographic data and validity were assessed in 52 consecutive patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome 1 of the lower extremity. Information on age, duration of symptoms, type of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome 1 and type of initiating event were obtained. We assessed the concurrent validity in the two domains pain and activities in daily living by comparing them with the corresponding measures on the Visual Analogue Scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that variability in the German Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Rising and Sitting Questionnaires was largely explained by measures of pain and activities in daily living on the Visual Analogue Scale.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our study shows that the domains pain and activities in daily living are properly represented in the German versions of the Walking Stairs, Walking Ability and Raising and Sitting Questionnaires. We would like to propagate their use in clinical practice and research alike.</p

German translation and external validation of the Radboud Skills Questionnaire in patients suffering from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome 1

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome commonly complain of substantial limitations in their activities of daily living. The Radboud Skills Questionnaire measures alterations in the level of disability of patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, but this instrument is currently not available in German. The goals of our study were to translate the Dutch Radboud Skills Questionnaire into German and to assess its external criterion validity with the German version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire. METHODS: We translated the Radboud Skills Questionnaire according to published guidelines. Demographic data and validity were assessed in 57 consecutive patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome 1 of the upper extremity. Information on age, duration of symptoms, type of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome 1 and type of initiating event was obtained. We assessed the external criterion validity by comparing the German Radboud Skills Questionnaire and the German Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire and calculated the prediction intervals. RESULTS: Score values ranged from 55.4 +/- 22.0 for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire score and 140.1 +/- 39.2 for the Radboud Skills Questionnaire. We found a high correlation between the Radboud Skills Questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (R2 = 0.83). CONCLUSION: This validation of the Radboud Skills Questionnaire demonstrates that this German version is a simple and accurate instrument to assess and quantify disabilities of patients suffering from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome 1 of the upper extremity for clinical and research purposes

Test-retest Reliability in Reporting the Pain Induced by a Pain Provocation Test:Further Validation of a Novel Approach for Pain Drawing Acquisition and Analysis

Background: Pain drawings (PD) are frequently used in research to illustrate the pain response to pain provocation tests. However, there is a lack of data on the reliability in defining the extent and location of pain. We investigated the test–retest reliability in reporting an acute painful sensation induced by a pain provocation test using a novel approach for PD acquisition and analysis in healthy volunteers. Methods: Forty healthy volunteers participated. Each participant underwent 2 upper limb neurodynamic tests 1 (ULNT1), once to the point of pain onset (PO) and once until the point of submaximal pain (SP). After each ULNT1, participants completed 2 consecutive PD with an interval of 1 minute. Custom software was used to quantify the pain extent and analyze the pain overlap. The test–retest reliability of pain extent was examined using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC 2,1) and Bland–Altman plots. Pain location reliability was examined using the Jaccard similarity coefficient (JSC). Results: The ICC values for PO and SP were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96–0.99) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98), respectively. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (± 1.96 SD) in the Bland–Altman plots were 14 pixels (−1080;1110) for PO, and 145 (−1610;1900) for SP. The median JSCs (Q1;Q3) were 0.73 (0.64;0.80) for PO and 0.76 (0.65;0.79) for SP. Conclusions: Pain drawings is a reliable instrument to investigate pain extent and pain location in healthy individuals experiencing an acute painful sensation induced by a pain provocation test.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Value of predictive instruments to determine persisting restriction of function in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain. Systematic review

Low back pain (LBP) can restrict function with all the personal, interpersonal, and social consequences, such as a loss of independence and the inability to fulfil diverse roles in social life. Therefore, the prevention of the consequences of LBP would reduce costs, individual burdens and social burdens. Being able to fulfil the requirements of daily living is a cornerstone of quality of life. Early identification of patients who are likely to develop chronic pain with persistent restricted function is important, as effective prevention needs informed allocation of health care and social work. The aim of this study was to report and discuss the predictive value of instruments used to identify patients at risk of chronic LBP. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Central, PEDro, Psyndex, PsychInfo/PsycLit, and Sociofile were systematically searched up to July 2004. Reference lists of systematic reviews on risk factors, and reference lists of the studies included were also searched. The selected studies evaluated predictive values of tools or predictive models applied 2–12 weeks after an initial medical consultation for a first or a new episode of non-specific LBP with restriction in function. Instruments had to predict function-related outcomes. Because of the heterogeneity of the instruments used we did not pool the data. Sixteen publications on function-related outcomes were included. The predictive instruments in these studies showed only moderate ability to predict or explain function-related outcome (maximal 51% of the variability). There was great variability in the predictors included and not all known risk factors were included in the models. The reviewed tools showed a limited ability to predict function-related outcome in patients with risk of chronic low back pain. Future instruments should be based on models with a comprehensive set of known risk factors. These models should be constructed and validated by international, coordinated research teams