Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22433987›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2012

Likert pain score modeling: a Markov integer model and an autoregressive continuous model.

E L Plan, J-P Elshoff, A Stockis, M L Sargentini-Maier, M O Karlsson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. A tutorial on pharmacometric Markov models.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Modeling and simulation of count data.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2014
    Article
  14. Translational PK-PD modeling in pain.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2013
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

E L PlanDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. elodie.plan@farmbio.uu.se
J-P Elshoff
A Stockis
M L Sargentini-Maier
M O Karlsson
Uppsala University · SEAblynx (Belgium) · BEUCB Pharma (Belgium) · BEUCB Pharma (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pain intensity is principally assessed using rating scales such as the 11-point Likert scale. In general, frequent pain assessments are serially correlated and underdispersed. The aim of this investigation was to develop population models adapted to fit the 11-point pain scale. Daily Likert scores were recorded over 18 weeks by 231 patients with neuropathic pain from a clinical trial placebo group. An integer model consisting of a truncated generalized Poisson (GP) distribution with Markovian transition probability inflation was implemented in NONMEM 7.1.0. It was compared to a logit-transformed autoregressive continuous model with correlated residual errors. In both models, the score baseline was estimated to be 6.2 and the placebo effect to be 19%. Developed models similarly retrieved consistent underlying features of the data and therefore correspond to platform models for drug effect detection. The integer model was complex but flexible, whereas the continuous model can more easily be developed, although requires longer runtimes.

Indexed as

Markov ChainsPain MeasurementAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPlacebo EffectProbabilityRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID22433987
OpenAlexW2113106041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.