Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTampin, B.
dc.contributor.authorBohne, T.
dc.contributor.authorCallan, M.
dc.contributor.authorKvia, M.
dc.contributor.authorMelsom Myhre, A.
dc.contributor.authorNeoh, E.
dc.contributor.authorBharat, C.
dc.contributor.authorSlater, Helen
dc.identifier.citationTampin, B. and Bohne, T. and Callan, M. and Kvia, M. and Melsom Myhre, A. and Neoh, E. and Bharat, C. et al. 2017. Reliability of the English version of the painDETECT questionnaire. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 33 (4): pp. 741-748.

Background: The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been used widely for the identification of neuropathic pain (NeP); however, the reliability of the English version of the PD-Q has never been investigated. Objective: This study aimed to determine the reliability of the PD-Q pre- (T0) and immediately post- (T1) clinical consultation and at one-week follow-up (T2). Methods: We recruited 157 patients attending a Neurosurgery Spinal Clinic and Pain Management Department. Minor changes to PD-Q instructions were made to facilitate patient understanding; however, no changes to individual items or scoring were made. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess the reliability of PD-Q total scores between T0–T1 and T0–T2; weighted kappa (κ) was used to assess the agreement of PD-Q classifications (unlikely NeP, ambiguous, likely NeP) between all time-points. To ensure stability of clinical pain, patients scoring ≤2 or ≥6 on the Patient Global Impression Scale (PGIC) at T2 were excluded from the T0–T2 analysis. Results: Accounting for missing data and exclusions (change in PGIC score), data for 136 individuals (mean [SD] age: 56.8 [15.2]; 54% male) was available, of whom n = 129 were included in the T0–T1 and n = 69 in the T0–T2 comparisons. There was almost perfect agreement between the PD-Q total scores at T0–T1 time-points (ICC 0.911; 95% CI: 0.882–0.941) and substantial agreement at T0–T2 (ICC 0.792; 95% CI: 0.703–0.880). PD-Q classifications demonstrated substantial agreement for T0–T1 (weighted κ: 0.771; 95% CI: 0.683–0.858) and for T0–T2 (weighted κ: 0.691; 95% CI: 0.553–0.830). Missing data was accounted in 13% of our cohort and over 42% of our patients drew multiple pain areas on the PD-Q body chart. Conclusion: The English version of the PD-Q is reliable as a screening tool for NeP. The validity of the questionnaire is still in question and has to be investigated in future studies.

dc.titleReliability of the English version of the painDETECT questionnaire
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.titleCurrent Medical Research and Opinion
curtin.departmentSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record