Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30720437›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019

What Affects the Completion of Ecological Momentary Assessments in Chronic Pain Research? An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Masakatsu Ono, Stefan Schneider, Doerte U Junghaenel, Arthur A Stone

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Masakatsu Ono *Center for Self-Report Science, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7635-5770
Stefan SchneiderCenter for Self-Report Science, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4562-0524
Doerte U JunghaenelCenter for Self-Report Science, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7733-571X
Arthur A StoneCenter for Self-Report Science, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7490-1758

Funding

Innovative pain outcomes derived from patients real-time pain reportsR01AR066200 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI SCHNEIDER, STEFAN, STONE, ARTHUR A · 2015 to 2018
$1.8M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR066200
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) involves repeated sampling of people's current experiences in real time in their natural environments, which offers a granular perspective on patients' experience of pain and other symptoms. However, EMA can be burdensome to patients, and its benefits depend upon patients' engagement in the assessments.

objectiveThe goal of this study was to investigate factors affecting EMA-completion rates among patients with chronic pain.

methodsThis individual patient data meta-analysis was based on 12 EMA datasets that examined patients with chronic noncancer-related pain (n=701). The EMA-completion rates were calculated on a daily basis for each patient. Multilevel models were used to test the following predictors of completion rates at different levels: within-patient factors (days into the study and daily pain level), between-patient factors (age, sex, pain diagnosis, and average pain level per person), and between-study EMA design factors (study duration, sampling density, and survey length).

resultsAcross datasets, an EMA-completion rate of 85% was observed. The strongest results were found for the between-patient factor age: Younger respondents reported lower completion rates than older respondents (P=.002). One within-patient factor, study day, was associated with completion rates (P<.001): over the course of the studies, the completion rates declined. The two abovementioned factors interacted with each other (P=.02) in that younger participants showed a more rapid decline in EMA completion over time. In addition, none of the other hypothesized factors including gender, chronic pain diagnoses, pain intensity levels, or measures of study burden showed any significant effects.

conclusionMany factors thought to influence the EMA-completion rates in chronic pain studies were not confirmed. However, future EMA research in chronic pain should note that study length and young age can impact the quality of the momentary data and devise strategies to maximize completion rates across different age groups and study days.

Indexed as

AdultChronic PainEcological Momentary AssessmentFemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaireschronic paincompletion ratecompliance rateecological momentary assessmentexperience samplingIPD meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID30720437
PMCPMC6379815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.