Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34407773›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the German Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI-GE).

Michel Klute, Marjan Laekeman, Katrin Kuss, Frank Petzke, Angela Dieterich, Andreas Leha, Randy Neblett, Steffen Ehrhardt, Joachim Ulma, Axel Schäfer

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Michel KlutePain Clinic, Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Georg August University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. michel.klute@stud.uni-goettingen.de.
Marjan LaekemanPhysiological Psychology, Otto-Friedrich- University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.
Katrin KussDepartment of General Practice/Family Medicine, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Frank PetzkePain Clinic, Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center, Georg August University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Angela DieterichPhysiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Safety, Society, Furtwangen University, Furtwangen, Germany.
Andreas LehaDepartment of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Randy NeblettPRIDE Research Foundation, Dallas, TX, USA.
Steffen EhrhardtFaculty of Social Sciences, City University of Applied Sciences, Bremen, Germany.
Joachim UlmaClinic for Pain Medicine Bremen, Rotes-Kreuz-Krankenhaus Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Axel SchäferFaculty of Social Work and Health, University of Applied Science and Art, Hildesheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) is a screening tool designed to detect symptoms related to Central Sensitization (CS) and Central Sensitivity Syndromes (CSS) by measuring the degree of related phenomena. The objective of this study was to create a German, culturally-adapted version of the CSI and to test its psychometric properties.

methodsA German version of the CSI (CSI-GE) was developed, culturally-adapted, and pretested for comprehensibility. The psychometric properties of the resulting version were validated in a clinical study with chronic pain and pain-free control subjects. To assess retest reliability, the CSI-GE was administered twice to a subgroup of patients. Structural validity was tested using factor analyses. To investigate construct validity a hypotheses testing approach was used, including (1) correlations between the CSI-GE and several other well-established questionnaires as well as (2) an investigation of the CSI-GE discriminative power between different subgroups of participants believed to have different degrees of CS.

resultsThe CSI-GE showed excellent reliability, including high test-retest characteristics. Factor analyses confirmed a bi-factor dimensionality as has been determined previously. Analysing construct validity 6 out of 11 hypotheses (55%) were met. CSI-GE scores differentiated between subgroups according to expectations. Correlations between CSI-GE scores and other questionnaires suggested that none of the correlated constructs was identical, but there was overlap with other questionnaires based on symptom load. Several correlations did not fit with our current understanding of CS.

conclusionThe CSI-GE appears to be a reliable tool for measuring CS/CSS-related symptomatology. Whether this implies that the CSI-GE measures the degree of CS within an individual subject remains unknown. The resulting score should be interpreted cautiously until further clarification of the construct.

Indexed as

Central Nervous System SensitizationChronic PainCross-Cultural ComparisonHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesCentral sensitivity syndromesCentral sensitizationCentral sensitization inventoryChronic painCross-cultural adaptationCSICSI-GEPsychometric validation

Identifiers

PMID34407773
PMCPMC8375049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.