Ashok K Saxena1, Dipanshu Khrolia1, Geetanjali T Chilkoti1, R Kumar Malhotra2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, India. 2. Dr BRA IRCH, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire is a widely used tool for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain (NP). The aim was to validate the Complete Hindi version of DN4 (CH-DN4) questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic translation process was used to translate the original English DN4 into Hindi. The Hindi version was validated among patients appearing in the pain clinic of a tertiary hospital in the capital of Delhi by two different raters. We assessed the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater agreement, validity, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 285 participants, out of which 153 had NP and 132 had non NP (NNP) were included in the study. The results showed our CH-DN4 to have good diagnostic accuracy, a score of ≥ 3.5 was found to be the best cut-off for the diagnosis of NP, with a sensitivity of 0.78, specificity of 0.76, a positive predictive value of 78.5%, and a negative predictive value of 74.5%. Cronbach's α was 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.84), and interclass correlation coefficients was 0.95. The AUC was >0.8 indicating excellent discrimination between NP and NNP. CONCLUSION: The CH-DN4 questionnaire has been found to be a reliable and valid screening tool with an excellent power to discriminate between NP and NNP.
OBJECTIVES: The Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire is a widely used tool for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain (NP). The aim was to validate the Complete Hindi version of DN4 (CH-DN4) questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic translation process was used to translate the original English DN4 into Hindi. The Hindi version was validated among patients appearing in the pain clinic of a tertiary hospital in the capital of Delhi by two different raters. We assessed the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater agreement, validity, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 285 participants, out of which 153 had NP and 132 had non NP (NNP) were included in the study. The results showed our CH-DN4 to have good diagnostic accuracy, a score of ≥ 3.5 was found to be the best cut-off for the diagnosis of NP, with a sensitivity of 0.78, specificity of 0.76, a positive predictive value of 78.5%, and a negative predictive value of 74.5%. Cronbach's α was 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.84), and interclass correlation coefficients was 0.95. The AUC was >0.8 indicating excellent discrimination between NP and NNP. CONCLUSION: The CH-DN4 questionnaire has been found to be a reliable and valid screening tool with an excellent power to discriminate between NP and NNP.
Authors: Michael I Bennett; Nadine Attal; Miroslav M Backonja; Ralf Baron; Didier Bouhassira; Rainer Freynhagen; Joachim Scholz; Thomas R Tölle; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen; Troels Staehelin Jensen Journal: Pain Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Troels S Jensen; Ralf Baron; Maija Haanpää; Eija Kalso; John D Loeser; Andrew S C Rice; Rolf-Detlef Treede Journal: Pain Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Rainer Freynhagen; Ralf Baron; Thomas Tölle; Edgar Stemmler; Ulrich Gockel; Markus Stevens; Christoph Maier Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Robert van Seventer; Cornelis Vos; Maurice Giezeman; Willem-Jan Meerding; Benoit Arnould; Antoine Regnault; Maarten van Eerd; Carola Martin; Frank Huygen Journal: Pain Pract Date: 2012-10-31 Impact factor: 3.183