Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the German Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI-GE).
CSI
CSI-GE
Central sensitivity syndromes
Central sensitization
Central sensitization inventory
Chronic pain
Cross-cultural adaptation
Psychometric validation
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Aug 2021
18 Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
11
02
2021
accepted:
14
06
2021
entrez:
19
8
2021
pubmed:
20
8
2021
medline:
21
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) is a screening tool designed to detect symptoms related to Central Sensitization (CS) and Central Sensitivity Syndromes (CSS) by measuring the degree of related phenomena. The objective of this study was to create a German, culturally-adapted version of the CSI and to test its psychometric properties. A German version of the CSI (CSI-GE) was developed, culturally-adapted, and pretested for comprehensibility. The psychometric properties of the resulting version were validated in a clinical study with chronic pain and pain-free control subjects. To assess retest reliability, the CSI-GE was administered twice to a subgroup of patients. Structural validity was tested using factor analyses. To investigate construct validity a hypotheses testing approach was used, including (1) correlations between the CSI-GE and several other well-established questionnaires as well as (2) an investigation of the CSI-GE discriminative power between different subgroups of participants believed to have different degrees of CS. The CSI-GE showed excellent reliability, including high test-retest characteristics. Factor analyses confirmed a bi-factor dimensionality as has been determined previously. Analysing construct validity 6 out of 11 hypotheses (55%) were met. CSI-GE scores differentiated between subgroups according to expectations. Correlations between CSI-GE scores and other questionnaires suggested that none of the correlated constructs was identical, but there was overlap with other questionnaires based on symptom load. Several correlations did not fit with our current understanding of CS. The CSI-GE appears to be a reliable tool for measuring CS/CSS-related symptomatology. Whether this implies that the CSI-GE measures the degree of CS within an individual subject remains unknown. The resulting score should be interpreted cautiously until further clarification of the construct.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) is a screening tool designed to detect symptoms related to Central Sensitization (CS) and Central Sensitivity Syndromes (CSS) by measuring the degree of related phenomena. The objective of this study was to create a German, culturally-adapted version of the CSI and to test its psychometric properties.
METHODS
METHODS
A German version of the CSI (CSI-GE) was developed, culturally-adapted, and pretested for comprehensibility. The psychometric properties of the resulting version were validated in a clinical study with chronic pain and pain-free control subjects. To assess retest reliability, the CSI-GE was administered twice to a subgroup of patients. Structural validity was tested using factor analyses. To investigate construct validity a hypotheses testing approach was used, including (1) correlations between the CSI-GE and several other well-established questionnaires as well as (2) an investigation of the CSI-GE discriminative power between different subgroups of participants believed to have different degrees of CS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The CSI-GE showed excellent reliability, including high test-retest characteristics. Factor analyses confirmed a bi-factor dimensionality as has been determined previously. Analysing construct validity 6 out of 11 hypotheses (55%) were met. CSI-GE scores differentiated between subgroups according to expectations. Correlations between CSI-GE scores and other questionnaires suggested that none of the correlated constructs was identical, but there was overlap with other questionnaires based on symptom load. Several correlations did not fit with our current understanding of CS.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The CSI-GE appears to be a reliable tool for measuring CS/CSS-related symptomatology. Whether this implies that the CSI-GE measures the degree of CS within an individual subject remains unknown. The resulting score should be interpreted cautiously until further clarification of the construct.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34407773
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04481-5
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04481-5
pmc: PMC8375049
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
708Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Pain. 2009 Sep;10(9):895-926
pubmed: 19712899
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Pain. 2019 Jan;160(1):19-27
pubmed: 30586067
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010 Jun;49(6):1146-52
pubmed: 20236955
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Feb 17;18(1):117
pubmed: 29454344
Schmerz. 1999 Dec 13;13(6):385-91
pubmed: 12799914
Pain Pract. 2020 Sep;20(7):724-736
pubmed: 32285543
Schmerz. 2003 Aug;17(4):240-51
pubmed: 12923673
Pain Med. 2016 Nov;17(11):2026-2035
pubmed: 27230076
Clin J Pain. 2016 Jul;32(7):624-30
pubmed: 26418360
Pain. 1992 Aug;50(2):133-149
pubmed: 1408309
Springerplus. 2016 Oct 21;5(1):1837
pubmed: 27818875
Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33
pubmed: 8628042
J Psychosom Res. 2019 Feb;117:32-40
pubmed: 30665594
J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999 Sep;18(3):180-7
pubmed: 10517039
Qual Life Res. 1995 Aug;4(4):293-307
pubmed: 7550178
Pain. 2015 Jun;156(6):1003-1007
pubmed: 25844555
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2007 Oct;132(41):2133-8
pubmed: 17924293
Pain Pract. 2012 Apr;12(4):276-85
pubmed: 21951710
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014 Oct;66(10):1465-71
pubmed: 24497433
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37504
pubmed: 22662163
Clin J Pain. 2006 Oct;22(8):717-24
pubmed: 16988568
Trials. 2016 Sep 13;17(1):449
pubmed: 27618914
Schmerz. 2020 Aug;34(4):332-342
pubmed: 32157443
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
Spine J. 2017 Dec;17(12):1819-1829
pubmed: 28619687
Pain. 2012 Jun;153(6):1210-1218
pubmed: 22541722
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 7;12(12):e0188719
pubmed: 29216211
J Rheumatol. 2011 Jun;38(6):1113-22
pubmed: 21285161
J Ambul Care Manage. 2006 Oct-Dec;29(4):310-9
pubmed: 16985389
J Psychosom Res. 2008 May;64(5):469-78
pubmed: 18440399
Pain Pract. 2018 Jul;18(6):777-787
pubmed: 29222851
Ann Intern Med. 2001 May 1;134(9 Pt 2):868-81
pubmed: 11346323
Pain Pract. 2018 Apr;18(4):463-472
pubmed: 28777895
J Pain. 2018 Mar;19(3):317-329
pubmed: 29198933
Pain. 2009 Nov;146(1-2):65-74
pubmed: 19665301
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Jun;36(6):339-56
pubmed: 17350675
Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018 Oct;37:20-28
pubmed: 29966856
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Mar 18;10:22
pubmed: 20298572
Int J Clin Pract. 2016 Jan;70(1):31-44
pubmed: 26558538
Man Ther. 2010 Apr;15(2):135-41
pubmed: 20036180
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 10;12(8):e0182207
pubmed: 28796805
Clin Rehabil. 2018 Oct;32(10):1426-1427
pubmed: 30114940
J Rehabil Med. 2012 Feb;44(2):97-8
pubmed: 22334345
Schmerz. 2017 Dec;31(6):559-567
pubmed: 28785792
Pain Pract. 2020 Feb;20(2):188-196
pubmed: 31605651
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Oct;22(10):1911-20
pubmed: 17022849
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2018 Feb 5;22(2):9
pubmed: 29404791
Pain. 2011 Mar;152(3 Suppl):S2-S15
pubmed: 20961685
Pain Med. 2020 Dec 25;21(12):3401-3412
pubmed: 32935129
Schmerz. 2020 Oct;34(5):421-430
pubmed: 32451747
J Appl Biobehav Res. 2018 Jun;23(2):
pubmed: 30479469
BMC Neurol. 2020 Jul 27;20(1):286
pubmed: 32718330
J Psychiatr Res. 1999 Mar-Apr;33(2):97-104
pubmed: 10221741
J Rheumatol. 2019 Feb;46(2):204-212
pubmed: 30008459
Pain. 2003 Oct;105(3):403-413
pubmed: 14527701
Schmerz. 2015 Dec;29(6):649-57
pubmed: 26205682
J Pain Res. 2017 Sep 01;10:2109-2122
pubmed: 28979158