(PACE 2010; 400-406).”
“The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Italian version of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) and validate the translation in subjects with chronic non-specific pain of the locomotor system.
The questionnaire was developed following international recommendations. The psychometric analyses included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation, ICC), and construct
validity by calculating the correlations between the subscales of the CPCI with measures of AR-13324 mw pain (numerical rating scale, NRS), disability (SIP-Roland Scale) and depression (CES-D) (Pearson’s correlation).
The CPCI was satisfactorily administered to 270 subjects with chronic non-specific pain. Results of confirmatory factor analyses revealed that, of the CPCI-I 8 subscales, 6 demonstrated good data-model fit (CFI and NFI a parts per thousand yen0.90, RMSEA a parts per thousand currency sign0.08). Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory in all of the subscales (0.71-0.80); the ICCs were good/excellent in all of the subscales (0.80-0.91). The correlations STA-9090 with the NRS, SIP-Roland and CES-D were poor in most cases as only the CPCI-Guarding subscale moderately correlated with disability (r = 0.31).
The CPCI was successfully translated into Italian and proved to have
a good factorial structure and psychometric properties similar to the original and adapted versions. The use of the Italian version of the CPCI is recommended for clinical and research VX-689 purposes.”
“PURPOSE: To compare parameters of biomechanical response of the human cornea measured as corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) in patients with diabetes
mellitus and healthy control subjects.
SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel.
METHODS: In the right eye of each participant, the CH, CRF, Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg), and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) were measured with the Ocular Response Analyzer. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured by ultrasonic pachymetry and intraocular pressure by Goldmann applanation tonometry (IOP GAT). Findings were compared between the 2 groups (control and diabetic).
RESULTS: Forty diabetic patients (17 women, 23 men) and 40 healthy subjects (19 women, 21 men) were prospectively recruited. The mean CH was 9.3 mm Hg +/- 1.4 (SD) and 10.7 +/- 1.6 mm Hg and the mean CRF was 9.6 +/- 1.6 mm Hg and 10.9 +/- 1.7 mm Hg in the control group and diabetic group, respectively (both P < .0001). Diabetic corneas were significantly thicker (P = .019); the mean CCT was 530.3 +/- 35.9 mu m in the control group and 548.7 +/- 33.0 mu m in the diabetic group. The CH and CRF remained significantly different in multivariate analysis that included CCT.