Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures

Pain

Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 287-294

  Farrar, John T ^a   Portenoy, Russell K ^b   Berlin, Jesse A ^a   Kinman, Judith L ^a   Strom, Brian L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Analgesics; Pain; Pain measurement; Randomized controlled trials; Treatment outcome

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; FENTANYL CITRATE; OPIATE; PLACEBO;

ANALGESIA; ARTICLE; CANCER PAIN; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAIN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANALGESICS, OPIOID; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FENTANYL; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PAIN, INTRACTABLE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0034578738     PISSN: 03043959     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00339-0     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. OMERACT III. Outcome measures in arthritis clinical trials. Cairns, Australia, April 16-19, 1996. Proceedings
2. The measurement of pain in man
3. Responsiveness of endpoints in osteoporosis clinical trials - an update
4. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate: randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial for treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients
5. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee
6. Does it matter whom and how you ask? Inter- and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey
7. Correlation of patient and caregiver ratings of cancer pain
8. A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model
9. Methods for measuring clinical pain in humans
10. Graphic representation of pain
11. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire
12. The clinical measurement of pain
13. Analytic approaches to quantifying pain scores
14. Central post-stroke pain - a controlled trial of amitriptyline and carbamazepine
15. Assessment of physical and behavioral outcomes of treatment
16. The relative potency of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate compared with intravenous morphine in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain
17. Methodological challenges for clinical trials of cancer pain treatments
18. Effects of desipramine, amitriptyline, and fluoxetine on pain in diabetic neuropathy
19. Anticonvulsant drugs for management of pain: a systematic review
20. Generalized variance component models for clustered categorical response variables
21. Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics
22. Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics: use of pain intensity and visual analogue scales
23. Quantitative systematic review of topically applied non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (see comments) (published erratum appears in Br Med J 1998;316(7137):1059)
24. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain
25. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques (see comments)
26. Rescue factor: a design for evaluating long-acting analgesics
27. When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function
28. A new approach to the analysis of analgesic drug trials, illustrated with bromfenac data
29. Absorption and bioavailability of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate
30. The minimum clinically important difference in physician-assigned visual analog pain scores
31. Neglected topics in chronic pain treatment outcome studies: determination of success
32. Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample-size calculation
33. Effects of acquiescent response set on patient satisfaction ratings