RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The douleur neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire is a widely used tool for diagnosis of neuropathic pain (NP). The aim was to translate, culturally adapt, and validate the DN4 questionnaire in Arabic. METHODS: A systematic translation process was used to translate the original English DN4 into Arabic. After the pilot study, the Arabic version was validated among patients with chronic pain in two tertiary care centers. The reliability of the translated version was examined using internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and intraclass correlation coefficients. We examined the validity of the Arabic DN4 via construct validity, concurrent validity (associations with the numeric rating scale, brief pain inventory, and Self-Completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs [S-LANSS]), face validity, and diagnostic validity. To investigate the responsiveness, the translated DN4 was administered twice among the same group of patients. RESULTS: A total of 142 subjects (68 men, 74 women) were included in the study. Cronbach's α was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.75), and interclass correlation coefficients was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.87). The DN4 was moderately associated with the S-LANSS questionnaire. Results showed our Arabic DN4 to have good diagnostic accuracy, with area under the curve of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.94). As with the original version, a score of ≥4 was found to be the best cut-off for the diagnosis of NP, with a sensitivity of 88.31%, specificity of 74.47%, a positive predictive value of 85%, and a negative predictive value of 80%. Most patients found the DN4 questionnaire to be clear and easy to understand, and thought the questionnaire items covered all their problem areas regarding their pain. CONCLUSION: Our Arabic version of the DN4 is a reliable and valid screening tool that can be easily administered among patients to differentiate between NP and non-NP.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (NPQ-SF) is the shortest diagnostic tool for the assessment of neuropathic pain, designed with the goal to differentiate between neuropathic and nonneuropathic pain. The aim of this study was to translate, culturally adapt, and validate the NPQ-SF questionnaire in Arabic. METHODS: A systematic translation process was used to translate the original English NPQ-SF into Arabic. After the pilot study, the Arabic version was validated among patients with chronic pain in two tertiary care centers. Reliability of the translated version was examined using internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We examined the validity of the Arabic NPQ-SF via construct validity, concurrent validity (associations with the numeric pain scale, Brief Pain Inventory, and Self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs [S-LANSS]), face validity, and diagnostic validity. To investigate the responsiveness, the translated NPQ-SF questionnaire was administered twice among the same group of patients. RESULTS: A total of 142 subjects (68 men, 74 women) were included in the study. Cronbach's α were 0.45 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.61) and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.63), and the ICC was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.85). The NPQ-SF was moderately to strongly associated with the S-LANSS questionnaire. Results showed our Arabic NPQ-SF to have good diagnostic accuracy, with area under the curve of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.84). Results from the receiver operating characteristic analysis identified a cut-off score of ≥0.52 as the best score to distinguish between patients with or without neuropathic pain, which was higher than the recommended cut-off score (≥0) in the original study. With both sensitivity and specificity of 71%. Most patients found the NPQ-SF questionnaire to be clear and easy to understand. CONCLUSION: Our translated version of NPQ-SF is reliable and valid for use, thus providing physicians a new tool with which to evaluate and diagnose neuropathic pain among Arabic-speaking patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Optimal analgesia for total knee arthroplasty remains challenging. Many modalities have been used, including peripheral nerve block, periarticular infiltration, and epidural analgesia. However, the relative efficacy of various modalities remains unknown. The authors aimed to quantify and rank order the efficacy of available analgesic modalities for various clinically important outcomes. METHODS: The authors searched multiple databases, each from inception until July 15, 2016. The authors used random-effects network meta-analysis. For measurements repeated over time, such as pain, the authors considered all time points to enhance reliability of the overall effect estimate. Outcomes considered included pain scores, opioid consumption, rehabilitation profile, quality of recovery, and complications. The authors defined the optimal modality as the one that best balanced pain scores, opioid consumption, and range of motion in the initial 72 postoperative hours. RESULTS: The authors identified 170 trials (12,530 patients) assessing 17 treatment modalities. Overall inconsistency and heterogeneity were acceptable. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the best five for pain at rest were femoral/obturator, femoral/sciatic/obturator, lumbar plexus/sciatic, femoral/sciatic, and fascia iliaca compartment blocks. For reducing opioid consumption, the best five were femoral/sciatic/obturator, femoral/obturator, lumbar plexus/sciatic, lumbar plexus, and femoral/sciatic blocks. The best modality for range of motion was femoral/sciatic blocks. Femoral/sciatic and femoral/obturator blocks best met our criteria for optimal performance. Considering only high-quality studies, femoral/sciatic seemed best. CONCLUSIONS: Blocking multiple nerves was preferable to blocking any single nerve, periarticular infiltration, or epidural analgesia. The combination of femoral and sciatic nerve block appears to be the overall best approach. Rehabilitation parameters remain markedly understudied.
