| Title |
The Central Sensitization Inventory validated and adapted for a Brazilian population: psychometric properties and its relationship with brain-derived neurotrophic factor
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s131479 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wolnei Caumo, Luciana C Antunes, Jéssica Lorenzzi Elkfury, Evelyn G Herbstrith, Raquel Busanello Sipmann, Andressa Souza, Iraci LS Torres, Vinicius Souza dos Santos, Randy Neblett |
| Abstract |
The primary aim was to assess the psychometric properties (including internal consistency, construct validity, reproducibility, and factor structure) of the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), adapted and validated for a Brazilian population (CSI-BP). Additionally, we evaluated the relationship between the CSI-BP and the serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and determined if the symptoms elicited by the CSI-BP discriminate between subjects who do/do not respond to the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) task, as assessed by change in numeric pain scale (0-10) score. A cross-sectional study was conducted in a pain clinic in a tertiary teaching hospital. A total of 222 adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain and 63 healthy control subjects completed the CSI-BP and the Brazilian Portuguese pain-catastrophizing scale (BP-PCS). A team of experts translated the CSI according to the international guidelines. Test-retest, item analysis, convergent validity, and factor analysis were performed. Later, a random subsample (n=77) was used to correlate the CSI-BP adjusted index with change in numeric pain-scale score during the CPM task and a BDNF blood sample. The CSI-BP presented strong psychometric properties (test-retest reliability 0.91, Cronbach's α=0.91). Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a four-factor structure, supporting the original English version. The CSI-BP adjusted index showed moderate positive correlation with the BP-PCS, and classified more than 80% of patients correctly vs healthy controls. Serum BDNF levels explained 27% of the variation in the CSI-BP adjusted index. Subjects with impairment in the descending modulatory system had higher CSI-BP adjusted index scores than subjects who responded normally to the CPM task: 49.35 (12.1) vs 39.5 (12.33), respectively (P<0.05). The CSI-BP was found to be a psychometrically strong and reliable instrument, with primary evidence of validity. Higher scores on the CSI-BP were correlated positively with serum BDNF and with greater dysfunction of the descending pain-modulatory system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 254 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 40 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 7% |
| Researcher | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 54 | 21% |
| Unknown | 77 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 50 | 20% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 11 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 9% |
| Unknown | 94 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2019.
All research outputs
#17,914,959
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,339
of 1,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,731
of 316,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#38
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.