3种神经病理性疼痛筛查量表在中轴型脊柱关节炎患者中的评价

目的 比较3种神经病理性疼痛筛查量表在中轴型脊柱关节炎患者中的信度、效度和适用性。方法 采用painDETECT问卷、神经病理性疼痛4问卷和利兹神经病理性症状和体征评估疼痛量表对186例中轴型脊柱关节炎患者进行调查,评价量表的信度和效度。结果 painDETECT问卷、神经病理性疼痛4问卷和利兹神经病理性症状和体征评估疼痛量表的Cronbach α系数分别为0.807,0.697和0.623, Guttman分半系数分别为0.846、0.691和0.701。painDETECT问卷共提取2个公因子,累计方差贡献率55.171%。神经病理性疼痛4问卷共提取4个公因子,累计方差贡献率66.627%。利兹神经病理性症状和体征评估疼痛量表共提取2个公因子,累计方差贡献率50.836%。3种量表评估结果一致性Kappa值和相关性r值均大于0.500。患者对3种量表首选率分别为71.5%、3.2%和14.0%。结论 painDETECT问卷信度和效度良好,首选率最高。其余2种量表信度尚可,效度良好。3种量表一致性与相关性较强。

Evaluation of Three Neuropathic Pain Screening Scales in Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis

Objective To compare the reliability, validity and applicability of three neuropathic pain screening scales in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods One hundred and eighty-six patients with axSpA were surveyed using PainDETECT Questionnaire (PD-Q), Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) Questionnaire and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) pain scale, and the reliability and validity of the scales were evaluated. Results The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the PD-Q, the DN4 and the LANSS was 0.807, 0.697 and 0.623, and the Guttman split-half coefficient 0.846, 0.691 and 0.701, respectively. Two main factors were extracted from the PD-Q, and the total cumulative variance contribution rate was 55.171%. Four main factors were extracted from the DN4, and the total cumulative variance contribution rate was 66.627%. Two main factors were extracted from the LANSS, and the total cumulative variance contribution rate was 50.836%. The Kappa value and correlation coefficient among three scales were over 0.500. The patients’ preference rate of the PD-Q, the DN4 and the LANSS was 71.5%, 3.2%, and 14.0%, respectively. Conclusion With good reliability and validity, the PD-Q is a preferred option by most patients, and the LANSS and the DN4 have good validity and acceptable reliability. All the three scales have strong consistency and correlation.