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.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.

Validation of the Spanish version of the Index of Spouse Abuse

Background: Partner violence against women is a major public health problem. Although there are currently a number of validated screening and diagnostic tools that can be used to evaluate this type of violence, such tools are not available in Spain. The aim of this study is to analyze the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA). Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in 2005 in two health centers in Granada, Spain, in 390 women between 18 and 70 years old. Analyses of the factorial structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity were conducted. Cutoff points for each subscale were also defined. For the construct validity analysis, the SF-36 perceived general health dimension, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Goldberg 12-item General Health Questionnaire were included. Results: The psychometric analysis shows that the instrument has good internal consistency, reproducibility, and construct validity. Conclusions: The scale is useful for the analysis of partner violence against women in both a research setting and a healthcare setting

Validation of the spanish version of the multiple sclerosis international quality of life (musiqol) questionnaire

BACKGROUND: The Multiple Sclerosis International Quality Of Life (MusiQoL) questionnaire, a 31-item, multidimensional, self-administrated questionnaire that is available in 14 languages including Spanish, has been validated using a large international sample. We investigated the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of MusiQoL in Spain. METHODS: Consecutive patients with different types and severities of multiple sclerosis (MS) were recruited from 22 centres across Spain. All patients completed the MusiQoL questionnaire, the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) health survey, and a symptoms checklist at baseline and 21 days later. External validity, internal consistency, reliability and reproducibility were tested. RESULTS: A total of 224 Spanish patients were evaluated. Dimensions of MusiQoL generally demonstrated a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.70-0.92 for all but two MusiQoL domain scores). External validity testing revealed that the MusiQoL index score correlated significantly with all SF-36 dimension scores (Pearson's correlation: 0.46-0.76), reproducibility was satisfactory (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.60-0.91), acceptability was high, and the time taken to complete the 31-item questionnaire was reasonable (mean [standard deviation]: 9.8 [11.8] minutes). CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish version of the MusiQoL questionnaire appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for measuring quality of life in patients with MS in Spain and constitutes a useful instrument to measure health-related quality of life in the clinical setting.

Construcción y validación del cuestionario G_Clinic para medir la satisfacción laboral en profesionales de enfermería de las unidades de gestión clínica.

BACKGROUND Job satisfaction of nurses is a determinant factor in the quality and organizational adaptation of clinical management models in the current socio-economic context. The aim of this study was to construct and validate a questionnaire to measure job satisfaction of nurses in the Clinical Management Units in the Andalusian Public Health System. METHODS Clinimetric and cross-sectional study with a sample of 314 nurses of two university hospitals from Seville. Nurses were surveyed in 2011, from March to June. We used the Font Roja questionnaire adapted to our study variables. We performed analyses of correlations, reliability and construct validity, using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the a priori model. RESULTS The end questionnaire consists of 10 items, whose internal consistency was 0.75, with a percentage of variance explaining of 63.67%. CFA confirmed 4 dimensions (work environment, work relationships, motivation, and recognition): significant χ2 (p < .001); χ2/gl = 2.013; GFI= 0.958, RMR = 0.055 y RMSEA = 0.057; AGFI = 0.927, NFI = 0.878, TLI = 0.902, CFI =0.933 e IFI = 0.935; AIC = 132.486 y ECVI = 0.423. CONCLUSION This new questionnaire (G_Clinic) improves clinimetric values of the Font Roja questionnaire, because it reduces the number of items, improves the reliability of the dimensions, increases the value of variance explained, and allows knowing job satisfaction of nurses in clinical managementt.