J T Farrar1. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia 19104, USA. jfarrar@cceb.med.upenn.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this analysis is a better understanding of the issues involved in establishing the amount of change in pain that must be reported by subjects, participating in clinical trials and using standard pain scales, to indicate a clinically important difference. DESIGN: A review of the literature and a discussion of relevant concepts are presented. The focus is on outcome measures of pain commonly used in the studies described, including pain intensity, pain relief, global assessment of the medication effect, and requirement for an extra dose of rescue medication to treat a pain episode. The standard analysis statistics used to summarize the data are the central tendency of the groups being compared (i.e., mean, median, or mode), and the proportion of subjects that achieve one or more specific levels of benefit. RESULTS: The analysis of the proportion of responders in the groups being compared allows for a more easily understandable clinical importance of the results. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of the proportion of responders is a clinically relevant analysis for many pain clinical trials and should be presented for one or more levels of response as appropriate. This will allow the readers to more easily interpret the results and apply them to clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this analysis is a better understanding of the issues involved in establishing the amount of change in pain that must be reported by subjects, participating in clinical trials and using standard pain scales, to indicate a clinically important difference. DESIGN: A review of the literature and a discussion of relevant concepts are presented. The focus is on outcome measures of pain commonly used in the studies described, including pain intensity, pain relief, global assessment of the medication effect, and requirement for an extra dose of rescue medication to treat a pain episode. The standard analysis statistics used to summarize the data are the central tendency of the groups being compared (i.e., mean, median, or mode), and the proportion of subjects that achieve one or more specific levels of benefit. RESULTS: The analysis of the proportion of responders in the groups being compared allows for a more easily understandable clinical importance of the results. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of the proportion of responders is a clinically relevant analysis for many pain clinical trials and should be presented for one or more levels of response as appropriate. This will allow the readers to more easily interpret the results and apply them to clinical practice.
Authors: Jordan F Karp; Bruce L Rollman; Charles F Reynolds; Jennifer Q Morse; Frank Lotrich; Sati Mazumdar; Natalia Morone; Debra K Weiner Journal: Pain Med Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: J Moukharskaya; D M Abrams; T Ashikaga; F Khan; J Schwartz; K Wilson; C Verschraegen; T Openshaw; J Valentine; J Eneman; P Unger; S Ades Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-02-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Valerie Durkalski; Walter Stewart; Paulette MacDougall; Patrick Mauldin; Joseph Romagnuolo; Olga Brawman-Minzter; Peter Cotton Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Natalie Moryl; Vinnidhy Dave; Paul Glare; Ali Bokhari; Vivek T Malhotra; Amitabh Gulati; Joseph Hung; Vinay Puttanniah; Yvona Griffo; Roma Tickoo; Alison Wiesenthal; Susan D Horn; Charles E Inturrisi Journal: J Pain Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Elizabeth Anderson-Peacock; Jean-Sébastien Blouin; Roland Bryans; Normand Danis; Andrea Furlan; Henri Marcoux; Brock Potter; Rick Ruegg; Janice Gross Stein; Eleanor White Journal: J Can Chiropr Assoc Date: 2005-09