Psychometric characteristics of the Spanish version of instruments to measure neck pain disability

BACKGROUND. The NDI, COM and NPQ are evaluation instruments for disability due to NP. There was no Spanish version of NDI or COM for which psychometric characteristics were known. The objectives of this study were to translate and culturally adapt the Spanish version of the Neck Disability Index Questionnaire (NDI), and the Core Outcome Measure (COM), to validate its use in Spanish speaking patients with non-specific neck pain (NP), and to compare their psychometric characteristics with those of the Spanish version of the Northwick Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). METHODS. Translation/re-translation of the English versions of the NDI and the COM was done blindly and independently by a multidisciplinary team. The study was done in 9 primary care Centers and 12 specialty services from 9 regions in Spain, with 221 acute, subacute and chronic patients who visited their physician for NP: 54 in the pilot phase and 167 in the validation phase. Neck pain (VAS), referred pain (VAS), disability (NDI, COM and NPQ), catastrophizing (CSQ) and quality of life (SF-12) were measured on their first visit and 14 days later. Patients' self-assessment was used as the external criterion for pain and disability. In the pilot phase, patients' understanding of each item in the NDI and COM was assessed, and on day 1 test-retest reliability was estimated by giving a second NDI and COM in which the name of the questionnaires and the order of the items had been changed. RESULTS. Comprehensibility of NDI and COM were good. Minutes needed to fill out the questionnaires [median, (P25, P75)]: NDI. 4 (2.2, 10.0), COM: 2.1 (1.0, 4.9). Reliability: [ICC, (95%CI)]: NDI: 0.88 (0.80, 0.93). COM: 0.85 (0.75,0.91). Sensitivity to change: Effect size for patients having worsened, not changed and improved between days 1 and 15, according to the external criterion for disability: NDI: -0.24, 0.15, 0.66; NPQ: -0.14, 0.06, 0.67; COM: 0.05, 0.19, 0.92. Validity: Results of NDI, NPQ and COM were consistent with the external criterion for disability, whereas only those from NDI were consistent with the one for pain. Correlations with VAS, CSQ and SF-12 were similar for NDI and NPQ (absolute values between 0.36 and 0.50 on day 1, between 0.38 and 0.70 on day 15), and slightly lower for COM (between 0.36 and 0.48 on day 1, and between 0.33 and 0.61 on day 15). Correlation between NDI and NPQ: r = 0.84 on day 1, r = 0.91 on day 15. Correlation between COM and NPQ: r = 0.63 on day 1, r = 0.71 on day 15. CONCLUSION. Although most psychometric characteristics of NDI, NPQ and COM are similar, those from the latter one are worse and its use may lead to patients' evolution seeming more positive than it actually is. NDI seems to be the best instrument for measuring NP-related disability, since its results are the most consistent with patient's assessment of their own clinical status and evolution. It takes two more minutes to answer the NDI than to answer the COM, but it can be reliably filled out by the patient without assistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical Trials Register NCT00349544.

Laboratory detection of respiratory viruses by automated techniques.

Advances in clinical virology for detecting respiratory viruses have been focused on nucleic acids amplification techniques, which have converted in the reference method for the diagnosis of acute respiratory infections of viral aetiology. Improvements of current commercial molecular assays to reduce hands-on-time rely on two strategies, a stepwise automation (semi-automation) and the complete automation of the whole procedure. Contributions to the former strategy have been the use of automated nucleic acids extractors, multiplex PCR, real-time PCR and/or DNA arrays for detection of amplicons. Commercial fully-automated molecular systems are now available for the detection of respiratory viruses. Some of them could convert in point-of-care methods substituting antigen tests for detection of respiratory syncytial virus and influenza A and B viruses. This article describes laboratory methods for detection of respiratory viruses. A cost-effective and rational diagnostic algorithm is proposed, considering technical aspects of the available assays, infrastructure possibilities of each laboratory and clinic-epidemiologic factors of the infection.

Introduction of an automated system for the diagnosis and quantification of hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections pose major public health problems because of their prevalence worldwide. Consequently, screening for these infections is an important part of routine laboratory activity. Serological and molecular markers are key elements in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment monitoring for HBV and HCV infections. Today, automated chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) analyzers are widely used for virological diagnosis, particularly in high-volume clinical laboratories. Molecular biology techniques are routinely used to detect and quantify viral genomes as well as to analyze their sequence; in order to determine their genotype and detect resistance to antiviral drugs. Real-time PCR, which provides high sensitivity and a broad dynamic range, has gradually replaced other signal and target amplification technologies for the quantification and detection of nucleic acid. The next-generation DNA sequencing techniques are still restricted to research laboratories.The serological and molecular marker methods available for HBV and HCV are discussed in this article, along with their utility and limitations for use in Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) diagnosis and monitoring.

Evaluation of three automated systems for susceptibility testing of enterobacteria containing qnrB, qnrS, and/or aac(6')-Ib-cr.

The accuracy of the MicroScan WalkAway, BD Phoenix, and Vitek-2 systems for susceptibility testing of quinolones and aminoglycosides against 68 enterobacteria containing qnrB, qnrS, and/or aac(6 ')-Ib-cr was evaluated using reference microdilution. Overall, one very major error (0.09%), 6 major errors (0.52%), and 45 minor errors (3.89%) were noted.