MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618662985 · doi:10.4103/sja.sja_42_17

Development and validation of Arabic version of the Short-Form Mcgill Pain Questionnaire

2017· article· en· W2618662985 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsBrief Pain InventoryMedicineMcGill Pain QuestionnaireCronbach's alphaConstruct validityPain assessmentNeuropathic painPain scalePhysical therapyRating scaleConcurrent validityClinical psychologyVisual analogue scaleChronic painPsychometricsInternal consistencyPsychologyPain managementAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) is a widely used tool for qualitative and quantitative pain assessment. Our aim was to translate, culturally adapt, and validate the SF-MPQ in Arabic.Methods: A systematic translation process was used to translate the original English SF-MPQ into Arabic. After the pilot study, we validated our version in patients with chronic pain at two tertiary care centers. We tested the reliability of our version using internal consistency and test-retest reliability. We examined the validity by assessing construct validity, concurrent validity (by investigating the associations between SF-MPQ, Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], and Self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs [S-LANSS]), and face validity. The questionnaire was administered twice to examine responsiveness.Results: A total of 142 participants (68 men and 74 women) were included in this study. Cronbach's α was 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.81– 0.89), and interclass correlation coefficients were 0.71 (0.62–0.79) for the whole scale. SF-MPQ was moderately associated with patients' present pain (r = 0.55, P< 0.001) and the numerical rating scale (r = 0.42, P< 0.001). The total pain score was moderately correlated with pain severity and interference assessed with the BPI (rs = 0.39 to 0.49, all Ps < 0.001). SF-MPQ total pain score was weakly associated with neuropathic pain assessed with S-LANSS (r = 0.26, P< 0.01). Most patients found the SF-MPQ questions to be clear and easy to understand and thought the questionnaire items covered all their problem areas regarding their pain.Conclusion: Our translated version of SF-MPQ was reliable and valid for use among Arabic-speaking patients. The SF-MPQ is a good qualitative and quantitative assessment tool for pain but is only weakly associated with neuropathic pain.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it