ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2014
Moving towards multiple site outcomes in spinal cord injury pain clinical trials: An issue of clustered observations in trial design and analysis.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in pain and quality of life in depressed individuals with spinal cord injury: does type of pain matter?The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2016Trial
- The Negative Effect of Social Discrimination on Pain Tolerance and the Moderating Role of Pain Catastrophizing.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2023Article
- Evaluating the effectiveness of antidepressant therapy adjuvant to gabapentin and pregabalin for treatment of SCI-related neuropathic pain.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2018Article
- Promoting Gait Recovery and Limiting Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPain remains a problem for many with spinal cord injury (SCI), and there is a need for sound, randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of existing and novel therapeutics. SCI-related pain is complex, as more than one type of pain is often experienced. The purpose of this report is to (i) demonstrate how to design and power calculation of a clinical trial of SCI pain using multiple pain sites per individual; (ii) discuss consequences of failing to adjust for this; and (iii) provide intraclass correlation (ICC) estimates for common pain outcome measures that may be used to power future clinical trials in SCI pain.
methodUsing an existing dataset from a past SCI pain clinical trial, the ICC was calculated for common pain outcome measures to illustrate appropriate corrections for powering, analyzing and interpreting results from multiple pain sites per individual. The problem associated with not accounting for multiple pain sites per individual and the effect on the Type I error rate is also shown. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Not accounting for the ICC can lead to (1) incorrect power estimates in the design of a trial, and (2) an inflated Type I error rate with a higher likelihood of misinterpretation of outcomes.
conclusionsPowering for future SCI pain trials and statistical analysis of trial outcomes may be substantially compromised if methods do not account for the intra-individual associations between pain sites, ultimately affecting study interpretations and evidence-based practice. We present ICC estimates based on SCI pain data for purposes of estimating power for future trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.