The Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the McGill Pain Questionnaire were reproducible, valid, and responsive in patients with musculoskeletal pain

The purpose of this study was to the present a translated version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire to Brazilian Portuguese that adapted the original pain descriptors according to the Brazilian culture, aiming at its scientific validation. Initially, the original questionnaire was translated by 3 legally recognized translators fluent in English and in Brazilian Portuguese. The translations were meticulously assessed by 5 health professionals (3 dentists, 1 physician and 1 medical student) who were asked to choose the best translation for each pain descriptor of the original questionnaire in English. The resulting questionnaire was applied to 80 subjects (20 professors, 20 dental students, 20 employees and 20 patients, all related to the School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo). After some adjustments to improve the understanding of the pain descriptors, an adaptation of the intensity values of each pain descriptor was done by 20 postgraduate dental students and 20 undergraduate dental students, who were asked to record, for each word, the pain intensity value based on their personal opinion. In addition, they were asked to fill out the final version of the questionnaire to identify any doubts. The McGill Pain Questionnaire proved to be a very useful tool for measuring pain, and its version in Brazilian Portuguese was validated to be used as an important diagnostic resource.

Download Full-text

Responsiveness of the VAS and McGill Pain Questionnaire in Measuring Changes in Musculoskeletal Pain

Journal of Sport Rehabilitation ◽

10.1123/jsr.20.2.250 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 250-255 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Amy Chaffee ◽

Mariel Yakuboff ◽

Tomomi Tanabe

Keyword(s):

Musculoskeletal Pain ◽

Mcgill Pain Questionnaire ◽

Pain Questionnaire

Download Full-text

McGill Pain Questionnaire-2--Short Form; Sinhala Version

PsycTESTS Dataset ◽

10.1037/t78430-000 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Nirosha P. Edirisinghe ◽

Thamasi R. Makuloluwa ◽

Thamara D. Amarasekara ◽

Christine S. E. Goonewardena

Keyword(s):

Short Form ◽

Mcgill Pain Questionnaire ◽

Pain Questionnaire

Download Full-text

Acute experimentally-induced pain replicates the distribution but not the quality or behaviour of clinical appendicular musculoskeletal pain. A systematic review

Scandinavian Journal of Pain ◽

10.1515/sjpain-2020-0076 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 0 (0) ◽

Author(s):

Brendon Ford ◽

Mark Halaki ◽

Joanna Diong ◽

Karen A Ginn

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Musculoskeletal Pain ◽

Full Text ◽

Experimental Pain ◽

Common Mechanism ◽

Mcgill Pain Questionnaire ◽

Pain Response ◽

Provocation Testing ◽

Experimentally Induced

AbstractObjectivesExperimental pain is a commonly used method to draw conclusions about the motor response to clinical musculoskeletal pain. A systematic review was performed to determine if current models of acute experimental pain validly replicate the clinical experience of appendicular musculoskeletal pain with respect to the distribution and quality of pain and the pain response to provocation testing.MethodsA structured search of Medline, Scopus and Embase databases was conducted from database inception to August 2020 using the following key terms: “experimental muscle pain” OR “experimental pain” OR “pain induced” OR “induced pain” OR “muscle hyperalgesia“ OR (“Pain model” AND “muscle”). Studies in English were included if investigators induced experimental musculoskeletal pain into a limb (including the sacroiliac joint) in humans, and if they measured and reported the distribution of pain, quality of pain or response to a provocation manoeuvre performed passively or actively. Studies were excluded if they involved prolonged or delayed experimental pain, if temporomandibular, orofacial, lumbar, thoracic or cervical spine pain were investigated, if a full text of the study was not available or if they were systematic reviews. Two investigators independently screened each title and abstract and each full text paper to determine inclusion in the review. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third investigator.ResultsData from 57 experimental pain studies were included in this review. Forty-six of these studies reported pain distribution, 41 reported pain quality and six detailed the pain response to provocation testing. Hypertonic saline injection was the most common mechanism used to induce pain with 43 studies employing this method. The next most common methods were capsaicin injection (5 studies) and electrical stimulation, injection of acidic solution and ischaemia with three studies each. The distribution of experimental pain was similar to the area of pain reported in clinical appendicular musculoskeletal conditions. The quality of appendicular musculoskeletal pain was not replicated with the affective component of the McGill Pain Questionnaire consistently lower than that typically reported by musculoskeletal pain patients. The response to provocation testing was rarely investigated following experimental pain induction. Based on the limited available data, the increase in pain experienced in clinical populations during provocative maneuvers was not consistently replicated.ConclusionsCurrent acute experimental pain models replicate the distribution but not the quality of chronic clinical appendicular musculoskeletal pain. Limited evidence also indicates that experimentally induced acute pain does not consistently increase with tests known to provoke pain in patients with appendicular musculoskeletal pain. The results of this review question the validity of conclusions drawn from acute experimental pain studies regarding changes in muscle behaviour in response to pain in the clinical setting.

Download Full-text