Cited by 90Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research

Cross-cultural adaptation and validity of the Italian version of the Central Sensitization Inventory

Open access
Chiarotto, Alessandro, Viti, Carlotta, Sulli, Alberto, Cutolo, Maurizio, Testa, Marco, Piscitelli, Daniele·2018·Musculoskeletal Science and Practice

Abstract

Background Central sensitization (CS) is an important feature in patients with chronic pain. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) was developed with the goal of detecting the patients' symptoms related to CS.Objectives This study aimed at cross-culturally adapting the CSI into Italian, and at assessing its structural and construct validity in patients with different chronic pain disorders.Design Clinimetric study.Methods The Italian version of the CSI (CSI-I) was generated following forward and backward translations, expert committee review, and pilot-testing. Patients with pain for ≥3 months were eligible if diagnosed with: low back pain (LBP), temporomandibular disorder (TMD), hand osteoarthritis (HOA), fibromyalgia (FM), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Structural validity was assessed with exploratory factor analysis and parallel analysis based on minimum rank factor analysis; construct validity was evaluated by testing ten hypotheses on: 1) expected differences between relevant subgroups, 2) expected correlations with other instruments measuring pain intensity, physical functioning, psychological functioning, headache symptoms, and pain self-efficacy.Results 220 patients were included: 35% with LBP, 17% with TMD, 19% with HOA, 9% with FM, and 20% with RA. Factor analyses revealed that the CSI-I is a unidimensional instrument. Construct validity was satisfactory since 80% of the hypotheses were met.Conclusions The CSI-I was successfully developed and exhibited satisfactory validity in patients with chronic pain. Its reliability, responsiveness and content validity should be investigated in future studies. Until robust evidence indicates a strong relationship between CS and the CSI-I, caution should be adopted in claiming that the CSI-I measures CS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.msksp.2018.06.005

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cross-cultural adaptation of the CSI showed that its Italian version has good reliability and content validity.

    “The cross-cultural adaptation of the CSI showed that its Italian version has good reliability and content validity.31”

    From Acceptance and commitment therapy for prevention of chronic pain after total knee arthroplasty. (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

    The paper reports that the CSI was adapted into Italian, but its Abstract says reliability and content validity should be investigated in future studies. The Discussion likewise calls for a future reliability assessment and says content validity needs further study. It reports satisfactory structural and construct validity, not the claimed reliability and content validity. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chiarotto, A., Viti, C., Sulli, A., Cutolo, M., Testa, M., & Piscitelli, D.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • University of Genoa (IT)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Chiarotto, Alessandro
Venue
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
37
Pages
20-28
ISSN
2468-7812 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808183596
Cited by
90
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Musculoskeletal Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial Research Information System (University of Genoa) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Keywords
Central Sensitization Inventory, central sensitization, cross-cultural adaptation, Italian adaptation, chronic pain, low back pain, temporomandibular disorders, hand osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, construct validity, structural validity, psychometric properties
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Italy, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Translations, Reproducibility of Results, Central Nervous System Sensitization, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review