ArticleAdvances in rehabilitation science and practice
Development and Content Validation of the Questionnaire for Postamputation Pain (Q-PAP): An Expert Delphi Study.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The questionnaire for postamputation pain (Q-PAP) introduced here has undergone modifications over a decade of research on postamputation pain. It has so far been used as a form of study specific questionnaire. Here, we present the latest attempt to consolidate it as a tool useful for both research and clinical practice by involving experts on postamputation pain worldwide. Methods: A three-round Delphi study was conducted online, utilising email and digital forms as tools for communication and providing feedback. We included a purposive sample of 13 clinicians and researchers with expertise in postamputation pain from eight countries. The experts ranked each questionnaire item for relevance, clarity, and completeness on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus on each item was considered reached when the level of agreement was above 50%. Results: The preliminary version of the Q-PAP comprised an introduction and sections with questions on phantom limb pain, residual limb pain, neuroma pain, and situational changes. Based on the group's feedback, the section on neuroma pain was removed, as it required clinician-administered tests, which conflicted with the self-report nature of the questionnaire. In addition, individual items on telescoping, prosthesis use, and bone pain were removed, as experts deemed them too specific. The final version of the Q-PAP assesses pain intensity, descriptors, frequency, interference, phantom limb position, phantom limb movements, phantom limb sensation, and situational changes. Conclusion: The findings support content validity of the Q-PAP as a self-report instrument for the multidimensional assessment of postamputation pain, providing a clinically relevant and patient-centred tool for capturing key pain characteristics and experiences. The psychometric validation of the Q-PAP is a crucial part of future work, establishing its reliability, validity, and comparability for use in PAP research and clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.