Optimal strategies for reporting pain in clinical trials and systematic reviews: Recommendations from an OMERACT 12 workshop

Journal of Rheumatology

Volumn 42, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 1962-1970

  Busse, Jason W ^a,b,c   Bartlett, Susan J ^d,e   Dougados, Maxime ^f,g   Johnston, Bradley C ^c,h,i   Guyatt, Gordon H ^c   Kirwan, John R ^k   Kwoh, Kent ^l,m   Maxwell, Lara J ^j   Moore, Andrew ⁿ   Singh, Jasvinder A ^o,p   Stevens, Randall ^q,r   Strand, Vibeke ^s   Suarez Almazor, Maria E ^t   Tugwell, Peter ^j,u,v   Wells, George A ^j  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e Division of Orthopaedic Surgery   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^g Institut Cochin   (France)

^h UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

ⁱ HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^j UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^k UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^l UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^m VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^o BIRMINGHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^q CELGENE CORPORATION   (United States)

^r Robert Wood Johnson Medical School   (United States)

^s STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^t UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^u Department of Physiology   (United States)

^v OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

Clinical trials; OMERACT; Outcomes; Pain; Systematic reviews; Visual analog scale

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); HUMAN; MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PAIN THRESHOLD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RHEUMATOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WORKSHOP;

EID: 84943230116     PISSN: 0315162X     EISSN: 14992752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.141440     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Johnston BC, Bandayrel K, Friedrich JO, Akl EA, Da Costa BR, Neumann I, et al. Presentation of continuous outcomes in meta-analysis: a survey of clinicians' understanding and preferences: 21st Cochrane Colloquium. Suppl 1-212. Quebec City, Canada: Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;4:097.
2. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 1992;92:121-4.
3. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med 1992;117:916-21.
4. Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Giustetto G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet 1994;343:1209-11.
5. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Shannon H, Walter S, Cook D, Heddle N. Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. CMAJ 1995;152:351-7.
6. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995;310:452-4.
7. Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB. Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:888-92.
8. Nexoe J, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kragstrup J, Kristiansen IS, Nielsen JB. Danish GPs' perception of disease risk and benefit of prevention. Fam Pract 2002;19:3-6.
9. Gigerenzer G. The psychology of good judgment: frequency formats and simple algorithms. Med Decis Making 1996;16:273-80.
10. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 2003;327:741-4.
11. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med 1998;73:538-40.
12. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:87-96.
13. Busse JW, Maqbool A, Sivananthan L, Lopes LC, Schandelmaier S, Kamaleldin M, et al. Adherence to IMMPACT outcome reporting recommendations among trials assessing the effect of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. 22nd Cochrane Colloquium, September 2014, Hyderabad, India.
14. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Revicki D, Harding G, Burke LB, Cella D, et al. Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain 2008;137:276-85.
15. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Burke LB, Gershon R, Rothman M, Scott J, et al. Developing patient-reported outcome measures for pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2006;125:208-15.
16. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen M P, Katz NP, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005;113:9-19.
17. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Brandenburg N, Carr DB, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2003;106:337-45.
18. Furlan AD, Sandoval JA, Mailis-Gagnon A, Tunks E. Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects. CMAJ 2006;174:1589-94.
19. Chaput de Saintonge DM, Evans S, Crane G, Kirwan JR. Clinical trials and clinical practice: Do doctors use the same criteria to judge outcome? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997;44:583-6.
20. Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary-goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res 2005;40:593-7.
21. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316:690-3.
22. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:582-92.
23. Kulkarni AV. Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:176-184.
24. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, da Costa BR, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:817-26.
25. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371-83.
26. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11:171-84.
27. Kirwan JR. Minimum clinically important difference: the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow? J Rheumatol 2001;28:881-6.
28. Tubach F, Dougados M, Falissard B, Baron G, Logeart I, Ravaud P. Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:526-30.
29. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105-21.
30. Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J 2001;18:205-7.
31. Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149-58.
32. Moore RA, Straube S, Aldington D. Pain measures and cut-offs-'no worse than mild pain' as a simple, universal outcome. Anaesthesia 2013;68:400-12.
33. Furukawa TA, Akechi T, Wagenpfeil S, Leucht S. Relative indices of treatment effect may be constant across different definitions of response in schizophrenia trials. Schizophr Res 2011;126:212-9.
34. Suissa S. Binary methods for continuous outcomes: a parametric alternative. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:241-8.
35. Canavero S, Bonicalzi V. Intravenous subhypnotic propofol in central pain: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Clin Neuropharmacol 2004;27:182-6.
36. Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Menard-Lefaucheur I, Keravel Y, Nguyen JP. Motor cortex rTMS in chronic neuropathic pain: pain relief is associated with thermal sensory perception improvement. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008;79:1044-9.
37. Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Menard-Lefaucheur I, Keravel Y, Nguyen JP. Motor cortex rTMS restores defective intracortical inhibition in chronic neuropathic pain. Neurology 2006;67:1568-74.
38. Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Menard-Lefaucheur I, Zerah F, Bendib B, Cesaro P, et al. Neurogenic pain relief by repetitive transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation depends on the origin and the site of pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004;75:612-6.
39. Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Nguyen JP. Interventional neurophysiology for pain control: duration of pain relief following repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Neurophysiol Clin 2001;31:247-52.
40. Macefield RC, Jacobs M, Korfage IJ, Nicklin J, Whistance RN, Brookes ST, et al. Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Trials 2014;15:49.
41. Busse JW, Ebrahim S, Connell G, Coomes EA, Bruno P, Malik K, et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions for fibromyalgia: a protocol. Syst Rev 2013;2:18.
42. Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2011.
43. Fern E, Monroe K. Effect-size estimates: issues and problems in their interpretation. J Consum Res 1996;23:89-105.
44. Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Pooling continuous outcomes in meta-analysis: a comprehensive review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods 2011;2:188-203.
45. Friedrich JO, Adhikari NK, Beyene J. The ratio of means method as an alternative to mean differences for analyzing continuous outcome variables in meta-analysis: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:32.
46. Furukawa T. From effect size into number needed to treat. Lancet 1999;353:1680.
47. Karanicolas PJ, Smith SE, Kanbur B, Davies E, Guyatt GH. The impact of prophylactic dexamethasone on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2008;248:751-62.
48. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490-7.
49. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:173-83.