Development and psychometric properties of knee-specific body-perception questionnaire in people with knee osteoarthritis: The Fremantle Knee Awareness Questionnaire

Background: Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated that pain associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a complex phenomenon that involves various contributors. People with knee OA exhibit symptoms of impaired body-perception, including reduced tactile acuity, impairments in limb laterality recognition, and degraded proprioceptive acuity. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) was developed to assess body-perception specific to the back in people with chronic low back pain. The aim of this study was to develop and assess the psychometric properties of a knee-specific version of the FreBAQ-J (FreKAQ-J), determine whether people with knee pain experience perceptual impairments and investigate the relationship between disturbed self-perception and clinical status. Methods: Sixty-five people with knee OA completed the FreKAQ-J. A subset of the participants completed the FreKAQ-J again two-weeks later. Rasch analysis was used to assess item order, targeting, category ordering, unidimensionality, person fit, internal consistency, and differential item functioning. Validity was investigated by examining the relationship between the FreKAQ-J and clinical valuables. Results: The FreKAQ-J had acceptable internal consistency, unidimensionality, good test-retest reliability, and was functional on the category rating scale. The FreKAQ-J was significantly correlated with pain in motion, disability, pain-related catastrophizing, fear of movement, and anxiety symptomatology. Conclusions: We developed FreKAQ-J by modifying the FreBAQ-J. The FreKAQ-J fits the Rasch measurement model well and is suitable for use in people with knee OA. Altered body perception may be worth evaluating when managing people with knee OA

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Fremantle Knee Awareness Questionnaire in Italian subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis

Background and aim: Growing attention is being given to utilising physical function measures to better understand and manage knee osteoarthritis (OA). The Fremantle Knee Awareness Questionnaire (FreKAQ), a self-reported measure of body-perception specific to the knee, has never been validated in Italian patients. The aims of this study were to culturally adapt and validate the Italian version of the FreKAQ (FreKAQ-I), to allow for its use with Italian-speaking patients with painful knee OA. Methods: The FreKAQ-I was developed by means of forward–backward translation, a final review by an expert committee and a test of the pre-final version to evaluate its comprehensibility. The psychometric testing included: internal structural validity by Rasch analysis; construct validity by assessing hypotheses of FreKAQ correlations with the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), a pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), the pain catastrophising scale (PCS), and the Hospital anxiety and depression score (HADS) (Pearson’s correlations); known-group validity by evaluating the ability of FreKAQ scores to discriminate between two groups of participants with different clinical profiles (Mann–Whitney U test); reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC2.1); and measurement error by calculating the minimum detectable change (MDC). Results: It took one month to develop a consensus-based version of the FreKAQ-I. The questionnaire was administered to 102 subjects with painful knee OA and was well accepted. Internal structural validity confirmed the substantial unidimensionality of the FreKAQ-I: variance explained was 53.3%, the unexplained variance in the first contrast showed an eigenvalue of 1.8, and no local dependence was detected. Construct validity was good as all of the hypotheses were met; correlations: KOOS (rho = 0.38–0.51), PI-NRS (rho = 0.35–0.37), PCS (rho = 0.47) and HADS (Anxiety rho = 0.36; Depression rho = 0.43). Regarding known-groups validity, FreKAQ scores were significantly different between groups of participants demonstrating high and low levels of pain intensity, pain catastrophising, anxiety, depression and the four KOOS subscales (p ≤ 0.004). Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.74) and test–retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92, CI 0.87–0.94). The MDC95 was 5.22 scale points. Conclusion: The FreKAQ-I is unidimensional, reliable and valid in Italian patients with painful knee OA. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes

The translation, validity and reliability of the German version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

Background: The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) claims to assess disrupted self-perception of the back. The aim of this study was to develop a German version of the Fre-BAQ (FreBAQ-G) and assess its test-retest reliability, its known-groups validity and its convergent validity with another purported measure of back perception. Methods: The FreBaQ-G was translated following international guidelines for the transcultural adaptation of questionnaires. Thirty-five patients with non-specific CLBP and 48 healthy participants were recruited. Assessor one administered the FreBAQ-G to each patient with CLBP on two separate days to quantify intra-observer reliability. Assessor two administered the FreBaQ-G to each patient on day 1. The scores were compared to those obtained by assessor one on day 1 to assess inter-observer reliability. Known-groups validity was quantified by comparing the FreBAQ-G score between patients and healthy controls. To assess convergent validity, patient\u27s FreBAQ-G scores were correlated to their two-point discrimination (TPD) scores. Results: Intra- and Inter-observer reliability were both moderate with ICC3.1 = 0.88 (95%CI: 0.77 to 0.94) and 0.89 (95%CI: 0.79 to 0.94), respectively. Intra- and inter-observer limits of agreement (LoA) were 6.2 (95%CI: 5.0±8.1) and 6.0 (4.8±7.8), respectively. The adjusted mean difference between patients and controls was 5.4 (95%CI: 3.0 to 7.8, p\u3c0.01). Patient\u27s FreBAQ-G scores were not associated with TPD thresholds (Pearson\u27s r = -0.05, p = 0.79). Conclusions: The FreBAQ-G demonstrated a degree of reliability and known-groups validity. Interpretation of patient level data should be performed with caution because the LoA were substantial. It did not demonstrate convergent validity against TPD. Floor effects of some items of the FreBAQ-G may have influenced the validity and reliability results. The clinimetric properties of the FreBAQ-G require further investigation as a simple measure of disrupted self-perception of the back before firm recommendations on its use can be made

Intramural haematoma of the thoracic aorta: who's to be alerted the cardiologist or the cardiac surgeon?

This review article is written so as to present the pathophysiology, the symptomatology and the ways of diagnosis and treatment of a rather rare aortic disease called Intra-Mural Haematoma (IMH). Intramural haematoma is a quite uncommon but potentially lethal aortic disease that can strike as a primary occurrence in hypertensive and atherosclerotic patients to whom there is spontaneous bleeding from vasa vasorum into the aortic wall (media) or less frequently, as the evolution of a penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU). IMH displays a typical of dissection progress, and could be considered as a precursor of classic aortic dissection. IMH enfeebles the aortic wall and may progress to either outward rupture of the aorta or inward disruption of the intima layer, which ultimately results in aortic dissection. Chest and back acute penetrating pain is the most commonly noticed symptom at patients with IMH. Apart from a transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), a tomographic imaging such as a chest computed tomography (CT), a magnetic resonance (MRI) and most lately a multy detector computed tomography (MDCT) can ensure a quick and accurate diagnosis of IMH. Similar to type A and B aortic dissection, surgery is indicated at patients with type-A IMH, as well as at patients with a persistent and/or recurrent pain. For any other patient (with type-B IMH without an incessant pain and/or without complications), medical treatment is suggested, as applied in the case of aortic dissection. The outcome of IMH in ascending aorta (type A) appears favourable after immediate (emergent or urgent) surgical intervention, but according to international bibliography patients with IMH of the descending aorta (type B) show similar mortality rates to those being subjected to conservative medical or surgical treatment. Endovascular surgery and stent-graft placement is currently indicated in type B IMH

Difference in the impact of central sensitization on pain-related symptoms between patients with chronic low back pain and knee osteoarthritis

Akira Mibu,1 Tomohiko Nishigami,1 Katsuyoshi Tanaka,2 Masahiro Manfuku,3 Satoko Yono21Department of Nursing and Physical Therapy, Konan Women’s University, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan; 2Department of Rehabilitation, Tanabe Orthopaedics, Osaka, Japan; 3Department of Rehabilitation, Breast Care Sensyu Clinic, Kishiwada, Osaka, JapanPurpose: The aims of the present study were to investigate whether the association between the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) score, pain-related symptoms, pain-related disability, and health-related quality of life differed by disease (chronic low back pain [CLBP] vs knee osteoarthritis [KOA]), and to determine optimal cutoff scores for the CSI reflecting disease-specific characteristics.Patients and methods: A total of 104 patients with CLBP and 50 patients with KOA were recruited. Central sensitization-related symptoms (CSI), EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D), Brief Pain Inventory, widespread pain (Widespread Pain Index [WPI]), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and temporal summation (TS) were assessed and compared between the CLBP and KOA groups. Univariate correlation analysis was performed in each group. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to identify 1) presence/absence of central sensitization (CS), 2) presence/absence of central sensitivity syndromes (CSSs), and 3) pain intensity and pain interference in each group.Results: The CSI and WPI scores were significantly higher in the CLBP group than in the KOA group. EQ-5D and pain interference scores significantly correlated with the CSI score in both the CLBP and KOA groups. The WPI score, PPT, and TS did not correlate with the CSI score in either the CLBP or KOA group. The suggested cutoff scores were 28 in the CLBP group and 17 in the KOA group to identify presence or absence of CSSs, and 34 in the CLBP group and 18–19 in the KOA group to identify pain severity.Conclusion: The impact of CS on pain could differ between CLBP and KOA and that cutoff scores differ by each parameter we attempted to identify. Therefore, we should use the appropriate cutoff scores for the purposes and consider the difference in the impact of CS on pain by the patient group.Keywords: central sensitization, chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, cutoff scor