ArticlePloS one2023
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the short-form of the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI-9) in patients with chronic pain: A single-center study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meditations on Methodological Issues in Clinical Investigations of "Central Sensitization" (Jonah XII).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Turkish cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the children activity scales-parent and teacher forms (ChAS-P/T).Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a Wechat mini app-based screening tool (eR-BFAS) for early detection of Parkinson's disease.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- The validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the PainDETECT questionnaire in osteoarthritis-related pain.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- The Influence of Preoperative Central Sensitization on the Postoperative Prognosis of Pilon Fractures: A Retrospective Study.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Validity and reliability of a Chinese language suicide screening questionnaire-observer rating (CL-SSQ-OR) assessment for children/adolescents.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic pain affects more than 30% of the general population. The 9-item Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI-9) is a shortened version of the CSI-25, which is a patient-reported instrument used to screen people at risk of central sensitization (CS). The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt and validate a Chinese version of the CSI-9. The Chinese CSI-9 was generated by translation of the original English version, back-translation, cultural adaptation, and revision using the Delphi method. The Chinese CSI-9 was administered to 235 patients with chronic pain and 55 healthy controls. Structural validity (confirmatory factor analysis), construct validity (correlations with other scales), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC), and internal consistency (Cronbach's α) were evaluated. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using one factor. The Chinese CSI-9 score was positively correlated with the Pain Catastrophic Scale (PCS) total score (r = 0.463), PCS subscale scores (r = 0.347-0.463), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) mean item score (r = 0.524), BPI total score (r = 0.773), and the number of painful sites (r = 0.451). The Chinese CSI-9 had excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.958) and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.902 in the overall sample and 0.828 in the chronic pain population). The optimal cut-off value for the Chinese CSI-9 was 18 points. The Chinese CSI-9 had excellent test-retest reliability and satisfactory structural validity and construct validity. The CSI-9 could potentially be utilized in China as a self-report questionnaire in both clinical practice and research settings.
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.