ArticleThe journal of pain2015
Experimental comparison of parametric versus nonparametric analyses of data from the cold pressor test.
Article in The journal of pain, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychobiological response to pain in female adolescents with nonsuicidal self-injury.Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN · 2017Trial
- Analysis of the Bacterial Biocenosis of Activated Sludge Treated with Leachate from Municipal Landfills.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Evaluation by Survival Analysis of Cold Pain Tolerance in Patients with Fibromyalgia and Opioid Use.Journal of pain research · 2022Article
- Validity of the cold pressor test and pain sensitivity questionnaire via online self-administration.PloS one · 2020Article
- Pain sensitivity and analgesic use among 10,486 adults: the Tromsø study.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledParametric statistical methods are common in human pain research. They require normally distributed data, but this assumption is rarely tested. The current study analyzes the appropriateness of parametric testing for outcomes from the cold pressor test (CPT), a common human experimental pain test. We systematically reviewed published CPT studies to quantify how often researchers test for normality and how often they use parametric versus nonparametric tests. We then measured the normality of CPT data from 7 independent small to medium cohorts and 1 study of >10,000 subjects. We then examined the ability of 2 common mathematical transformations to normalize our skewed data sets. Lastly, we performed Monte Carlo simulations on a representative data set to compare the statistical power of the parametric t-test versus the nonparametric Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test. We found that only 39% of published CPT studies (47/122) mentioned checking data distribution, yet 72% (88/122) used parametric statistics. Furthermore, among our 8 data sets, CPT outcomes were virtually always nonnormally distributed, and mathematical transformations were largely ineffective in normalizing them. The simulations demonstrated that the nonparametric Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test had greater statistical power than the parametric t-test for all scenarios tested: For small effect sizes, the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test had up to 300% more power. PERSPECTIVE: These results demonstrate that parametric analyses of CPT data are routine but incorrect and that they likely increase the chances of failing to detect significant between-group differences. They suggest that nonparametric analyses become standard for CPT studies and that assumptions of normality be routinely tested for other types of pain outcomes as well.
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.