Kirsha S Gordon1,2,3, Peter Peduzzi1,4, Robert D Kerns1,5. 1. The Pain Management Collaboratory Coordinating Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Yale School of Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut. 4. Yale School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, and Yale Center for Analytical Sciences, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Yale University, Departments of Psychiatry, Neurology and Psychology, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pain is one of the most significant causes of morbidity and disability worldwide. The efficacy of several nonpharmacological approaches for pain management has been established, but significant gaps exist between this evidence and their limited availability and use in routine clinical practice. Questions remain about their effectiveness and how best to integrate them in usual care to optimize patient-centered outcomes. Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) may help address this gap. Informed by the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2), we sought to describe the key features of optimized PCTs of nonpharmacological approaches for the management of pain and common co-occurring conditions. METHODS: To accomplish this objective, we searched the published literature on PCTs of nonpharmacological pain management approaches from 2010-2019 and applied the PRECIS-2 criteria. We discuss key PRECIS-2 domains of interest for designing and performing PCTs and cite specific examples from the published literature as potential models for future PCTs. RESULTS: We found 13 nonpharmacological PCTs. They were heterogeneous in size, recruitment, follow-up time, and location. The lessons learned from these studies led us to explicate key features of trials on the explanatory-pragmatic continuum across the PRECIS-2 domains that can be used by future investigators when designing their clinical trials of nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. CONCLUSIONS: We encourage the increased application of PCTs to produce timely and valuable results and products that will inform the development of safe and effective integrated pain care plans that optimize important patient-centered outcomes.
OBJECTIVE:Pain is one of the most significant causes of morbidity and disability worldwide. The efficacy of several nonpharmacological approaches for pain management has been established, but significant gaps exist between this evidence and their limited availability and use in routine clinical practice. Questions remain about their effectiveness and how best to integrate them in usual care to optimize patient-centered outcomes. Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) may help address this gap. Informed by the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2), we sought to describe the key features of optimized PCTs of nonpharmacological approaches for the management of pain and common co-occurring conditions. METHODS: To accomplish this objective, we searched the published literature on PCTs of nonpharmacological pain management approaches from 2010-2019 and applied the PRECIS-2 criteria. We discuss key PRECIS-2 domains of interest for designing and performing PCTs and cite specific examples from the published literature as potential models for future PCTs. RESULTS: We found 13 nonpharmacological PCTs. They were heterogeneous in size, recruitment, follow-up time, and location. The lessons learned from these studies led us to explicate key features of trials on the explanatory-pragmatic continuum across the PRECIS-2 domains that can be used by future investigators when designing their clinical trials of nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. CONCLUSIONS: We encourage the increased application of PCTs to produce timely and valuable results and products that will inform the development of safe and effective integrated pain care plans that optimize important patient-centered outcomes.
Authors: Kevin E Thorpe; Merrick Zwarenstein; Andrew D Oxman; Shaun Treweek; Curt D Furberg; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Eduardo Bergel; Ian Harvey; David J Magid; Kalipso Chalkidou Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Kirsty Loudon; Merrick Zwarenstein; Frank M Sullivan; Peter T Donnan; Ildikó Gágyor; Hans J S M Hobbelen; Fernando Althabe; Jerry A Krishnan; Shaun Treweek Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Shona Kalkman; Ghislaine J M W van Thiel; Diederick E Grobbee; Johannes J M van Delden Journal: Drug Discov Today Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 7.851
Authors: Michael C Rowbotham; Ian Gilron; Clara Glazer; Andrew S C Rice; Blair H Smith; Walter F Stewart; Ajay D Wasan Journal: Pain Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: M Carrington Reid; Charles R Henderson; Melissa A Trachtenberg; Katherine L Beissner; Eileen Bach; Yolanda Barrón; Sridevi Sridharan; Christopher M Murtaugh Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sarah E Lamb; Zara Hansen; Ranjit Lall; Emanuela Castelnuovo; Emma J Withers; Vivien Nichols; Rachel Potter; Martin R Underwood Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel M Walker; Jennifer L Hefner; Naleef Fareed; Timothy R Huerta; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 3.536