ArticleAdvances in rehabilitation science and practice
Cross-Cultural Validation of the Arabic Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ): Libyan Version in Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain.
Article in Advances in rehabilitation science and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Music Intervention on Pain, Mood, Sleep, and Heart Rate Variability in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Psychometric Validation of the Arabic Version of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) in Libya.Advances in rehabilitation science and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) is a widely used tool for assessing musculoskeletal pain, both in research and clinical practice. However, a culturally appropriate Arabic version for the Libyan context has not been available. This study aims to translate the SF-MPQ, and to examine its reliability and validity for assessing musculoskeletal pain in Libya. Methods: The SF-MPQ was cross-culturally adapted into Arabic using a forward-backward method. A total of 151 patients (Mean age ± SD = 40.66 ± 14) with musculoskeletal pain completed the SF-MPQ and other measures. Of these, 148 patients completed the second round of questionnaire completion two days after the first visit. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to examine relative test-retest reliability and Bland-Altman plots was performed to examine absolute agreement between the two assessments. Spearman's correlation was applied to assess construct validity. Results: The Arabic translation of the SF-MPQ was linguistically equivalent, without significant discrepancies. All but two of the Arabic descriptors were used by more than 33% of the participants, indicating good item measurement equivalency. The results showed a satisfactory Cronbach's α (0.74 for the total score), which indicates good internal consistency. The ICC for the total score revealed a high correlation for the test-retest (0.91), suggesting excellent relative reliability. Bland-Altman analyses showed no significant systematic bias between the repeated measurements. There were positive statistically significant correlations among the SF-MPQ, the Visual Analog Scale, and the Fatigue Severity Scale ( Conclusion: These results suggest that the Arabic SF-MPQ is reliable, valid, and cross-culturally equivalent to the original SF-MPQ for evaluating musculoskeletal pain among Arabic-speaking patients in Libya. Clinicians and researchers may therefore consider using this scale, as it is easy to use and understand by different age groups. Further research is needed to confirm our findings and to test the developed Arabic version of the SF-MPQ on different patient populations.
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.