ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2019
[German version of the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire : Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Current level of knowledge about pain among German physiotherapy lecturers].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- [Current knowledge of German physiotherapy trainees and students on pain and the influence of a teaching intervention].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- [Current knowledge among German physiotherapists on the subject of pain].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Danish version of the neurophysiology of pain questionnaire.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- [An instrument to assess biopsychosocial pain concepts in adults : Development and evaluation by experts].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- [Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess physiotherapists' postural-structural-biomechanical-oriented beliefs about pain].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Identifying Latent Profiles of Healthy Adults' Biopsychosocial Pain Concepts.Pain research & management · 2025Article
- Appropriateness of exercise therapy delivery in chronic low back pain management: cross-sectional online survey of physiotherapy practice in Germany.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Know Pain, No Pain? Preliminary Testing and Application of a New Tool to Assess Biopsychosocial Pain Concepts in Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Assessment Tools of Patient Competences: The Spanish Version of the R-NPQ and Three Practical Cases in Women with Breast Cancer and Persistent Pain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Effect of Additional Pain Neuroscience Education in Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Therapy on Current Pain. A Non-Randomized, Controlled Intervention Study.Journal of pain research · 2020Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExcellence in Pain Education was the motto of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Global Year Campaign for 2018. Explaining pain neurobiology to patients is one part of pain education. To assess patient's pain knowledge, the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) has been extensively used internationally. The present study describes the translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the German version of the NPQ (NPQ‑D). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe questionnaire was translated and adapted following established recommendations. A total of 169 patients and 122 physiotherapists completed the NPQ‑D. The patients also completed the SF12 and the FFbH-R for the purpose of construct validation of the NPQ‑D. Furthermore, 55 patients repeated the NPQ‑D after 10 days. The NPQ‑D was tested for dimensionality, internal consistency, construct validity and test-retest reliability.
resultsInternal consistency was α = 0.52. An exploratory factor analysis revealed four different factors. Therapists did show significantly higher NPQ‑D scores than patients (p < 0.001) and therapist who have been educated in pain neurophysiology scored significantly higher than therapists without this education (p < 0.01). Test-retest reliability was high (ICC = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.82-0.93). There were no correlations between NPQ‑D and SF12 or FFbH-R indicating construct validity of the NPQ‑D.
conclusionsThe NPQ has been translated and adapted into German. The psychometric properties show satisfactory results and the questionnaire can be recommended for clinicians and researchers alike to assess pain knowledge and changes in pain knowledge after pain education interventions.
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.