Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions) questionnaire for differential diagnosis of pain syndromes associated to a neuropathic or somatic component

BACKGROUND This study assesses the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of DN4 questionnaire as a tool for differential diagnosis of pain syndromes associated to a neuropathic (NP) or somatic component (non-neuropathic pain, NNP). METHODS A study was conducted consisting of two phases: cultural adaptation into the Spanish language by means of conceptual equivalence, including forward and backward translations in duplicate and cognitive debriefing, and testing of psychometric properties in patients with NP (peripheral, central and mixed) and NNP. The analysis of psychometric properties included reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater agreement and test-retest reliability) and validity (ROC curve analysis, agreement with the reference diagnosis and determination of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values in different subsamples according to type of NP). RESULTS A sample of 164 subjects (99 women, 60.4%; age: 60.4 +/- 16.0 years), 94 (57.3%) with NP (36 with peripheral, 32 with central, and 26 with mixed pain) and 70 with NNP was enrolled. The questionnaire was reliable [Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.71, inter-rater agreement coefficient: 0.80 (0.71-0.89), and test-retest intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.95 (0.92-0.97)] and valid for a cut-off value > or = 4 points, which was the best value to discriminate between NP and NNP subjects. DISCUSSION This study, representing the first validation of the DN4 questionnaire into another language different than the original, not only supported its high discriminatory value for identification of neuropathic pain, but also provided supplemental psychometric validation (i.e. test-retest reliability, influence of educational level and pain intensity) and showed its validity in mixed pain syndromes.

Diferencias de género en la percepción del logro profesional en especialistas de medicina familiar y comunitaria

BACKGROUND The concept of achievement is important to study the professional development. In medicine there are gender inequalities in career. The purpose was to know and compare the professional achievement's perceptions and attributions of female and male primary care physicians in Andalusia. METHOD Qualitative study with 12 focus groups (October 2009 to November 2010). POPULATION primary care physicians. SAMPLE intentionally segmented by age, sex and health care management. Were conducted by sex: two groups with young physicians, two groups with middle aged and two with health care management. TOTAL: 32 female physician and 33 male physicians. Qualitative content analysis with Nuddist Vivo. RESULTS Female and male physicians agree to perceive internal achievements and to consider aspects inherent to the profession as external achievements. The most important difference is that female physician related professional achievement with affective bond and male physician with institutional merit. Internal attributions are more important for female physician who also highlight the importance of family, the organization of working time and work-family balance. Patients, continuing education, institutional resources and computer system are the most important attributions for male physician. CONCLUSIONS There are similarities and differences between female and male physicians both in the understanding and the attributions of achievement. The differences are explained by the gender system. The perception of achievement of the female physicians questions the dominant professional culture and incorporates new values in defining achievement. The attributions reflect the unequal impact of family and organizational variables and suggest that the female physicians would be changing gender socialization.

Unanswered clinical questions in the management of cardiometabolic risk in the elderly: a statement of the Spanish society of internal medicine.

BACKGROUND Despite the progressive increase in life expectancy and the relationship between aging with multi-morbidities and the increased use of healthcare resources, current clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on cardiometabolic risk cannot be adequately applied to elderly subjects with multiple chronic conditions. Its management frequently becomes complicated by both, an excessive use of medications that may lead to overtreatment, drug interactions and increased toxicity, and errors in dosage and non-compliance. Concerned by this gap, the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine created a group of independent experts on cardiometabolic risk who discussed what they considered to be unanswered questions in the management of elderly patients. DISCUSSION Current guidelines do not specifically address the problem of elderly with multiple chronic conditions. For this reason, the combined use of the limited available evidence, clinical experience and common sense, could all help us to address this unmet need. In very old people, life expectancy and functionality are the most important factors for guiding potential treatments. Their higher propensity to develop serious adverse events and their shorter lifespan could prevent them from obtaining the potential benefits of the interventions administered. SUMMARY In this document, experts on cardiometabolic risk factors have established a number of consensual recommendations that have taken into account international guidelines and clinical experience, and have also considered the more effective use of healthcare resources. This document is intended to provide general recommendations for clinicians and to promote the effective use of procedures and medications.