Skip to main content
Download PDF

Cross-cultural adaption, validity, and reliability of the Japanese version of the Central Aspects of Pain in the Knee (CAP-Knee-J) questionnaire in patients with knee pain: a validation study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 365 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Knee pain is a prominent concern among older individuals, influenced by the central nervous system. This study aimed to translate the Central Aspects of Pain in the Knee (CAP-Knee) questionnaire into Japanese and investigate its reliability and validity in older Japanese individuals with knee pain.

Methods

Using a forward–backward method, CAP-Knee was translated into Japanese, and data from 110 patients at an orthopedic clinic were analyzed. The Japanese version (CAP-Knee-J) was evaluated regarding pain intensity during walking, central sensitization inventory, and pain catastrophizing scale. Statistical analyses confirmed internal validity and test–retest reliability. Concurrent validity was assessed through a single correlation analysis between CAP-Knee-J and the aforementioned measures. Exploratory factor analysis was employed on each CAP-Knee-J item to examine structural validity.

Results

CAP-Knee-J showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) and excellent test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.77). It correlated significantly with pain intensity while walking, central sensitization inventory scores, and pain catastrophizing scale scores. Exploratory factor analysis produced a three-factor model.

Conclusions

CAP-Knee-J is a reliable and valid questionnaire for assessing central pain mechanisms specific to knee pain in older Japanese individuals, with moderate correlations with the CSI and weak with the PCS, thus indicating construct validity. This study supports the development of effective knee pain treatments and prognosis predictions.

Peer Review reports

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is an age-related degenerative disease characterized by knee pain. Approximately 33% of older individuals diagnosed with KOA via radiography experience knee pain [1], and 9–30% of patients with KOA who underwent total knee arthroplasty experience chronic postsurgical pain [2, 3]. Knee pain in older individuals is a risk factor for decreased knee extensor strength, walking ability, and quality of life, as well as reduced satisfaction with surgical intervention [4,5,6,7]. Thus, with the rapid aging of the population, knee pain in older individuals is a critical problem that requires resolution.

Knee pain can emerge due to central nervous system complications [8]. Apart from nociceptor neuron activity, central factors have been reported to increase pain in the central nervous system, leading to deteriorating knee pain and poor outcomes after knee arthroplasty [9]. Therefore, pain treatments targeting central nervous system mechanisms may improve the response to treatments targeting peripheral pain, potentially reducing knee pain. Assessing central nervous system mechanisms includes methods such as quantitative sensory testing, electroencephalography using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and self-report questionnaires [10]. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), a widely used self-report questionnaire, predicts pain outcomes and assesses central neural mechanisms and treatment responsiveness in musculoskeletal disorders [11, 12]. While CSI is versatile for various conditions, it may lack the ability to assess disease specificity. For older patients with knee pain, a questionnaire that assesses central pain mechanisms specific to knee pain may provide a more detailed prediction of the factors contributing to knee pain. Additionally, in primary care settings, patient stratification using questionnaire-based assessment of central nervous system knee pain mechanisms may allow for the selection of tailored treatments for each patient.

Akin-Akinyosone et al. developed the Central Aspects of Pain in the Knee (CAP-Knee) questionnaire as a simple and validated method to assess central mechanism traits in older patients with knee pain [13]. The CAP-Knee questionnaire comprises eight items that assess each of the eight characteristics linked to the central mechanism and are strongly associated with knee pain: neuropathic-like pain, fatigue, cognitive-impact, catastrophizing, anxiety, sleep disturbance, depression, and pain distribution. They reported that higher CAP-Knee scores were strongly associated with increased pain intensity [13]. Therefore, a self-report questionnaire that can comprehensively assess the central nervous system mechanisms in older patients with knee pain would be clinically useful. However, a Japanese version of the CAP-Knee (CAP-Knee-J) has not yet been developed.

Hence, this study aimed to develop a Japanese version of the CAP-Knee and investigate its reliability and validity in older patients with knee pain.

Methods

Translation of the questionnaire

The validation of CAP-Knee-J followed a standard cross-cultural adaptation process, including forward-translation, back-translation, and cognitive debriefing. Initially, two Japanese speakers (T. O. and O. W.) translated the original CAP-Knee questionnaire from English into Japanese. A consensus on the meaning of the translated items was achieved through discussions with three translators (T. O., O. W., and K. M.). Second, a native English speaker back-translated the revised Japanese version from Japanese to English. Third, the back-translation was reviewed and approved by the developer of the original CAP-Knee, creating a provisional version of the Japanese version of CAP-Knee-J. Finally, the provisional CAP-Knee-J was administered to 10 native Japanese patients with knee pain who provided feedback on the comprehensibility, completeness of the content, and time required for completion. Based on this feedback, we developed the final version of CAP-Knee-J (Additional file 1).

Participants

We calculated the sample size using G*power. The assumed parameters were used; t two-sided α-level = 0.05, β = 80%, population correlation = 0.30. The required sample size was estimated to be 84 participants. We decided to recruit 120 participants, anticipating a dropout rate of 30% for various reasons. We recruited 124 patients from an orthopedic clinic in Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, between July and December 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age > 65 years and (2) presence of knee pain. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the presence of inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis, (2) inability to correctly answer the questionnaire and pain intensity due to cognitive decline, and (3) inability to assess CAP-Knee-J twice for other reasons. After the exclusion of patients who were ≤ 65 years of age (n = 1), unable to correctly complete the questionnaire and pain intensity due to cognitive decline (n = 6), and unable to complete the questionnaire twice due to dropout (n = 7), 110 patients were included in the final analysis. The details of the participant recruitment are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart for the selection and assessment of the participants

Full size image

Prior to the commencement of testing, the Ethics Committee of our hospital approved all procedures performed in this study, and the study adhered to the guidelines set out by the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written informed consent before participating.

Procedure

Demographic data were collected from all patients’ medical records, including age, sex, weight, height, body mass index, and the Kellgren–Lawrence grade. Additionally, data regarding CAP-Knee-J and three pain-related outcomes were collected for all patients. These variables were selected due to their significant relationship with central sensitivity syndrome (CSS). The test–retest reliability of the CAP-Knee-J was determined at a 1-month time interval. The participants answered the questionnaire in the same order for both rounds by themselves.

Central aspects of pain in the knee

The CAP-Knee questionnaire consists of eight items that assess eight characteristics related to the central mechanisms of knee pain. Each item was developed from existing questionnaires measuring neuropathic-like pain [14], fatigue [15], cognitive impact [16], catastrophizing [17], anxiety and depression [18], sleep disturbance [19], and pain distribution [20]. Scoring was performed as described in a previous study [13]; “never” = 0, “sometimes” = 1, “often” = 2, and “always” = 2. “Often” and “always” had the same score based on the analysis of a previous study [13]. In addition, we maintained the separation of the items in the questionnaire as there was a high possibility that altering the questionnaire into a three-choice format would alter the measurement characteristics. This was due to the fact that respondents tend to choose the middle position in such formats. Item 7 was reverse-scored with “never” = 2, “sometimes” = 1, “often” = 0, and “always” = 0. Item 8 was assigned a binary score of “0” or “2” based on the shading on the pain distribution manikin, which corresponded to reported pain at one knee and below the waist. Each item is equally weighted; therefore, with a maximum score of two per item, the scores can range from 0 to 16, where higher scores indicate higher impact of central mechanisms.

Pain-related outcomes

  1. i.

    Pain intensity while walking.

Pain intensity while walking was evaluated using a numerical rating scale, which is a valid and reliable instrument used in clinical practice owing to its sensitivity [21]. Pain intensity was evaluated on a scale ranging 0–10, with 0 representing no pain, and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable.

  1. ii.

    CSI

The CSI was developed as a comprehensive screening instrument for CS [11], which is designed to help clinicians identify patients whose presenting symptoms may be related to CSS. CSI consists of two parts (A and B). Part A, a 25-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess health-related symptoms that are common to CSSs, was used in this study. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0 (‘‘never’’) to 4 (‘‘always’’), with a total score ranging 0–100. The scores from all 25 items were added to obtain a final score (ranging 0–100). The reliability and validity of the Japanese version have been previously reported [22].

  1. iii.

    Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)

Pain catastrophizing refers to the tendency to dwell on one’s pain and envision its worst possible outcome, significantly influencing the pain experience and related outcomes in chronic musculoskeletal diseases. Pain catastrophizing was assessed using PCS, which consists of 13 items that describe an individual’s specific beliefs about their pain and evaluate catastrophic thinking about pain. Each item is rated on a 5-point Linkart-type scale from 0 (‘‘not at all’’) to 4 (‘‘all the time’’). Higher PCS scores indicated greater pain catastrophizing. The scores from all 13 items were added to obtain a final score, ranging 0–52. The scale provides overall and subscale scores for rumination, magnification, and helplessness, of which only the overall scores were used in this study. The reliability and validity of the Japanese version have been previously reported [23].

Statistical analysis

For the patient characteristics, continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and categorical variables as frequency and percentage once normal distributions of all continuous data were confirmed using the Shapiro–Wilk test.

First, the internal consistency of CAP-Knee-J was assessed using Cronbach’s α. An α-value between 0.70 and 0.90 was considered good; >0.90 was considered excellent [24]. In addition, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, two-way random effects model with single measures) were calculated to determine the test–retest reliability. ICC3,1 values in the ranges of < 0.40, 0.40–0.75, and 0.75–1.00 were considered to indicate poor, moderate, and excellent reliability, respectively [25]. Reliability was assessed using scores obtained from a second round of the questionnaire, completed 1 month after the first round of the questionnaire. Second, to examine concurrent validity, we performed a single correlation analysis between CAP-Knee-J and pain intensity, CSI, and PCS using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. A ρ-value between 0.30 and 0.50 was considered weak correlation, between 0.50 and 0.70 was considered a moderate correlation, and > 0.70 was considered a strong correlation [26]. Finally, to examine structural validity, the eight CAP-Knee-J items were examined using an exploratory factor analysis. While validating a new questionnaire or a translated version of an existing questionnaire, it is advisable to first indicate a data reduction procedure using exploratory factor analysis, which we conducted using the maximum likelihood method with the direct oblimin method. Factors were considered for eigenvalues > 1 [22, 27, 28]. The cutoff value for loading was set at 0.40.

The statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 28 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) for Windows.

Results

The patient characteristics and pain-related variables are summarized in Table 1. The mean age was 74.2 years, and 92 patients (83.6%) were women. The average CAP-Knee-J score was 8.3 ± 3.1, and the pain intensity while walking was 5.7 ± 2.5.

Table 1 Patient characteristics and pain-related variables among patients with knee pain
Full size table

The distribution of each item on CAP-Knee-J, and internal consistency and reliability are summarized in Table 2. Items 3 and 4 had a high percentage of “Often/Always” responses (Item 3: 50.0%; Item 4: 63.6%). CAP-Knee-J showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.86). Regarding test–retest reliability, there was excellent agreement between the first test and retest total raw ordinal scores, with an ICC3,1 of 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.82).

Table 2 The distribution of each item in the CAP-Knee-J questionnaire, and internal consistency and reliability
Full size table

The correlation between CAP-Knee-J and pain-related outcomes is shown in Table 3. CAP-Knee-J showed a moderate correlation with CSI-J scores (r = 0.52; p < 0.001) and a weak significant correlation with pain intensity (r = 0.35; p < 0.001), and PCS scores (r = 0.36; p < 0.001). The correlation between CAP-Knee-J and pain intensity was higher than that between CSI or PCS and pain intensity.

Table 3 Single-correlation analysis between CAP-Knee-J and CSI, PCS, and pain intensity using Spearman’s correlation coefficient
Full size table

Table 4 presents the results of the exploratory factor analysis, which produced a three-factor model. Factor 1, named ‘‘Sleep disturbance,” encompassed one item (Item 6). Factor 2, named ‘‘Fatigue,” encompassed one item (Item 2). Factor 3, named ‘‘Central mechanism,” encompassed three items (items 3, 4, and 8) pertaining to the ‘‘Central mechanism’’ from the original article. Items 1, 5, and 7 are not loaded.

Table 4 Factor loadings of the exploratory factor analysis
Full size table

Discussion

We revealed that CAP-Knee-J had good internal consistency, excellent reliability, and a significant correlation with pain-related outcomes such as pain intensity, CSI, and PCS. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that CAP-Knee-J had a three-factor structure. Furthermore, our results showed that CAP-Knee-J is a useful tool for assessing central sensitization in Japanese patients with knee pain. This study is the first to develop a questionnaire to assess central neural mechanisms specifically in older Japanese patients with knee pain.

The present study showed that the internal consistency of CAP-Knee-J was 0.86, which was consistent with the original version (Cronbach’s α = 0.74) [13]. Using “taking a bath” as an example illustrates that, while in Japan people often soak in baths or hot springs, in England the concept of bathing typically involves taking a shower. Despite these cultural differences, the results indicate that CAP-Knee-J can be applied across different cultures. Additionally, ICC was 0.77, indicating the excellent reliability of CAP-Knee-J, which was similar to those in previous studies on the original CAP-Knee (ICC = 0.91) [13]. Therefore, we considered CAP-Knee-J a reliable questionnaire. Our study also showed significant associations between CAP-Knee-J and pain intensity, CSI, and PCS. CAP-Knee-J was moderately correlated with CSI, and weakly correlated with PCS. These results suggest that CAP-Knee-J reflects CSS, and its association with factors related to pain intensity indicates its construct validity. Furthermore, CAP-Knee-J exhibited a stronger association with pain intensity compared to CSI or PCS. This suggests that CAP-Knee-J may serve as a more sensitive prognosis predictor for disability and quality of life, particularly in older patients with knee pain, because of its crucial association with pain intensity.

Exploratory factor analysis confirmed a three-factor model, consisting of ‘‘Sleep disturbance,’’ ‘‘Fatigue,” and ‘‘Central mechanism.” Notably, sleep disturbance and fatigue emerged as unique factors in the Japanese version. A potential explanation for these results is the influence of KOA severity. Most participants in our study had moderate or severe KOA; however, the severity of KOA in the original CAP-Knee was not reported. Sleep disturbance and fatigue were negatively associated with chronic pain [29, 30], and previous studies have reported an association between KOA severity and sleep disturbance and fatigue [31,32,33]. Therefore, these items may have been identified as relevant factors for older patients with knee pain in this study.

This study was cross-sectional, and further studies are needed to investigate whether CAP-Knee-J is equally effective in predicting the prognosis of other central pain-related evaluations. Future research is also needed to apply CAP-Knee as a stratification tool. Establishing a clinically appropriate cutoff score might assist in treatment planning by classifying patient groups, such as those with poor response to regular physical therapy, who might benefit from psychological interventions aimed at improving central pain functions.

This study had some limitations. First, there were no direct measures of CSS such as quantitative sensory testing or MRI. Therefore, the results are not comparable to these direct measure results. Second, the study primarily included patients with moderate or severe KOA, suggesting the possibility of selection bias. Further studies that include patients with early KOA should be conducted to generalize the results of this study.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrates that CAP-Knee-J is a reliable and valid questionnaire to assess central pain mechanisms in Japanese patients with knee pain. Furthermore, there are weak-to-moderate correlations between CAP-Knee and CSI or PCS, thus indicating construct validity. We anticipate that CAP-Knee-J will prove useful in developing effective treatments for knee pain and predicting patient prognosis.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CAP-Knee:

Central Aspects of Pain in the Knee

CAP-Knee-J:

Japanese version of the CAP-Knee

CSI:

Central Sensitization Inventory

CSS:

Central sensitivity syndrome

KOA:

Knee osteoarthritis

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

PCS:

Pain Catastrophizing Scale

References

  1. Muraki S, Oka H, Akune T, Mabuchi A, En-yo Y, Yoshida M, et al. Prevalence of radiographic knee osteoarthritis and its association with knee pain in the elderly of Japanese population-based cohorts: the ROAD study. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17:1137–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Aso K, Ikeuchi M, Takaya S, Sugimura N, Izumi M, Wada H et al. Chronic postsurgical pain after total knee arthroplasty: A prospective cohort study in Japanese population. Mod Rheumatol. 2021;31(5):1038-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14397595.2020.1859709, PMID 33274662.

  3. Tian M, Li Z, Chen X, Wu Q, Shi H, Zhu Y et al. Prevalence and predictors of chronic pain with two-year follow-up after knee arthroplasty. J Pain Res. 2022;15:1091 – 105. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S345496, PMID 35450062.

  4. Muraki S, Akune T, Teraguchi M, Kagotani R, Asai Y, Yoshida M et al. Quadriceps muscle strength, radiographic knee osteoarthritis and knee pain: the ROAD study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0737-5, PMID 26474770.

  5. Kitayuguchi J, Kamada M, Hamano T, Nabika T, Shiwaku K, Kamioka H et al. Association between knee pain and gait speed decline in rural Japanese community-dwelling older adults: 1-year prospective cohort study. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16(1):55–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12432, PMID 25611950.

  6. Muraki S, Akune T, Oka H, En-yo Y, Yoshida M, Saika A, Saika A, Suzuki T, Yoshida H, Ishibashi H, Tokimura F, Yamamoto S. Association of radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis with health-related quality of life in a population-based cohort study in Japan: the ROAD study. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2010;18:1227–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2010.06.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Scott CEH, Howie CR, Macdonald D, Biant LC. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(9):1253–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B9.24394. PMID 20798443.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Arendt-Nielsen L, Egsgaard LL, Petersen KK, Eskehave TN, Graven-Nielsen T, Hoeck HC et al. A mechanism-based pain sensitivity index to characterize knee osteoarthritis patients with different disease stages and pain levels. Eur J Pain. 2015;19(10):1406-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.651, PMID 25545011.

  9. Wylde V, Palmer S, Learmonth ID, Dieppe P. The association between pre-operative pain sensitisation and chronic pain after knee replacement: an exploratory study. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2013;21(9):1253-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.008, PMID 23973138.

  10. Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. 2011;152(3);Suppl:S2-S15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2010.09.030, PMID 20961685.

  11. Mayer TG, Neblett R, Cohen H, Howard KJ, Choi YH, Williams MJ, et al. The development and psychometric validation of the central sensitization inventory. Pain Pract. 2012;12(4):276–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00493.x. PMID 21951710.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Neblett R, Hartzell MM, Mayer TG, Cohen H, Gatchel RJ. Establishing clinically relevant severity levels for the central sensitization inventory. Pain Pract. 2017;17(2):166 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.12440, PMID 26989894.

  13. Akin-Akinyosoye K, James RJE, McWilliams DF, Millar B, das Nair R, Ferguson E et al. The Central Aspects of Pain in the Knee (CAP-Knee) questionnaire; a mixed-methods study of a self-report instrument for assessing central mechanisms in people with knee pain. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2021;29(6):802 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2021.02.562, PMID 33621705.

  14. Hochman JR, Gagliese L, Davis AM, Hawker GA. Neuropathic pain symptoms in a community knee OA cohort. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2011;19(6):647 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2011.03.007, PMID 21440077.

  15. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item short-form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. PMID 8628042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferguson E, Daniel E. The illness attitudes Scale (IAS): a psychometric evaluation on a non-clinical population. Pers Individ Dif. 1995;18(4):463–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)00186-V

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(4):524–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x, PMID 6880820.

  19. Lacey RJ, Lewis M, Jordan K, Jinks C, Sim J. Interrater reliability of scoring of pain drawings in a self-report health survey. Spine. 2005;30(16):E455–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000174274.38485.ee. PMID 16103839.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K et al. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum. 1986;29(8):1039-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780290816, PMID 3741515.

  21. Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14(7):798–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x, PMID 16000093.

  22. Tanaka K, Nishigami T, Mibu A, Manfuku M, Yono S, Shinohara Y et al. Validation of the Japanese version of the Central Sensitization Inventory in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0188719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188719, PMID 29216211.

  23. Matsuoka H, Sakano Y. Assessment of cognitive aspect of pain: development, reliability, and validation of Japanese version of Pain Catastrophizing Scale (in Japanese). Jpn J Psychosom Med. 2007;47:95e102.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J et al. Quality criteria were proposed for the measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60(1): 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012, PMID 17161752.

  25. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012, PMID 27330520.

  26. Hemphill JF. Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. Am Psychol. 2003; 58(1): 78 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.78, PMID 12674822.

  27. Lin K, Bao L, Wang J, Fujita K, Makimoto K, Liao X. Validation of the Chinese (Mandarin) version of the Oxford Knee Score in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(12):2992–3004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5495-2, PMID 28884273.

  28. Abdel-Aziz SB, Amin TT, Al-Gadeeb MB, Alhassar AI, Al-Ramadan A, Al-Helal M et al. Perceived barriers to breast cancer screening among Saudi women at primary care setting. J Prev Med Hyg. 2018;59(1):E20-9. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2018.59.1.689, PMID 29938236.

  29. Nijs J, Mairesse O, Neu D, Leysen L, Danneels L, Cagnie B et al. Sleep disturbances in chronic pain: neurobiology, assessment, and treatment in physical therapist practice. Phys Ther. 2018;98(5):325 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy020, PMID 29425327.

  30. Novaes GS, Perez MO, Beraldo MB, Pinto CR, Gianini RJ. Correlation of fatigue with pain and disability in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, respectively. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2011;51(5):451–5. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0482-50042011000500005. PMID 21952997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilcox S, Brenes GA, Levine D, Sevick MA, Shumaker SA, Craven T. Factors related to sleep disturbance in older adults experiencing knee pain or knee pain with radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(10):1241-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02597.x, PMID 11037011.

  32. Hodges A, Harmer AR, Dennis S, Nairn L, March L, Crosbie J et al. Prevalence and determinants of fatigue following total knee replacement: A longitudinal cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68(10):1434-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22861, PMID 26866417.

  33. Wolfe F, Hawley DJ, Wilson K. The prevalence and meaning of fatigue in rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol. 1996;23(8):1407–17. PMID 8856621.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all subjects and all staff members who participated in this study.

Funding

This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Therapy, Osaka Health Science University, 1-9-27, Temma, Kita-ku, Osaka, 530-0043, Japan

    Tomohiro Oka

  2. Department of Public Health, Kobe University Graduate School of Health Sciences, 7-10-2 Tomogaoka, Suma-ku, Kobe city, Hyogo, Japan

    Tomohiro Oka

  3. Department of Rehabilitation, Anshin Hospital, 1-4-12, Minatojima Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe City, Hyogo, Japan

    Osamu Wada & Shun Matsuda

  4. Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Science, Bukkyo University, 7, Kyoto Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto, Nishinokyohigashitoganoocho, Japan

    Katsuyoshi Tanaka

  5. Department of Orthopedics, Anshin Hospital, 1-4-12, Minatojima Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe City, Hyogo, Japan

    Kiyonori Mizuno

Authors
  1. Tomohiro Oka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Osamu Wada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shun Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katsuyoshi Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kiyonori Mizuno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TO, OW, and KM helped in the research idea and study design; TO, OW, and SM acquired data; TO, OW, and KT were involved in data analysis and interpretation; TO and KT were involved in statistical analysis; OW and KM were involved in supervision or mentorship. Each author contributed important intellectual content during article drafting or revision and accepts accountability for the overall work by ensuring that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomohiro Oka.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethics committee of Anshin Hospital approved the study protocol before commencement of the study (approval protocol number: No. 72; December 2021). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

12891_2024_7471_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Supplementary Material 1: A Japanese version of the CAP-Knee (CAP-Knee-J), Description of data: Content translated from CAP-Knee original version into Japanese

12891_2024_7471_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

Supplementary Material 2: The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) Part A, Description of data: Content of CSI questionnaire

Supplementary Material 3: Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Description of data: Content of PCS questionnaire

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oka, T., Wada, O., Matsuda, S. et al. Cross-cultural adaption, validity, and reliability of the Japanese version of the Central Aspects of Pain in the Knee (CAP-Knee-J) questionnaire in patients with knee pain: a validation study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 365 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07471-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07471-5

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us