Observational studyJournal of Korean medical science2015
Cross-cultural Adaptation and Linguistic Validation of the Korean Version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale.
Observational study in Journal of Korean medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Possible Neuropathic Pain in Clinical Practice-Review on Selected Diagnostic Tools and Its Further Challenges.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Prevalence of chronic post-thoracotomy pain in patients with traumatic multiple rib fractures in South Korea: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Cross Cultural Adaptation and Validation of Italian Version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Scale and Pain DETECT Questionnaire for the Distinction between Nociceptive and Neuropathic Pain.Pain research & management · 2021Article
- Neuropathic cancer pain: prevalence, pathophysiology, and management.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2018Review
- Educational Intervention Effect on Pain Management Quality in Emergency Department; a Clinical Audit.Advanced journal of emergency medicine · 2018Article
- Psychometric properties of the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) in Urdu.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2017Article
- Validation of the Malayalam Version of Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale in Cancer Patients in the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.Indian journal of palliative careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distinction between neuropathic pain and nociceptive pain helps facilitate appropriate management of pain; however, diagnosis of neuropathic pain remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to develop a Korean version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) pain scale and assess its reliability and validity. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original LANSS pain scale into Korean was established according to the published guidelines. The Korean version of the LANSS pain scale was applied to a total of 213 patients who were expertly diagnosed with neuropathic (n = 113) or nociceptive pain (n = 100). The Korean version of the scale had good reliability (Cronbach's α coefficient = 0.815, Guttman split-half coefficient = 0.800). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.928 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.885-0.959 (P < 0.001), suggesting good discriminate value. With a cut-off score ≥ 12, sensitivity was 72.6%, specificity was 98.0%, and the positive and negative predictive values were 98% and 76%, respectively. The Korean version of the LANSS pain scale is a useful, reliable, and valid instrument for screening neuropathic pain from nociceptive pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.