ArticleJournal of pain research2019
Recruitment and inclusion procedures as "pain killers" in clinical trials?
Article in Journal of pain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Defining and evaluating the Hawthorne effect in primary care, a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecruitment and inclusion procedures in clinical trials are time critical. This holds particularly true for studies investigating patients with fluctuating symptom patterns, like those with chronic neck pain. In a feasibility study on neck pain, we found a clinically relevant decrease in pain ratings within the recruitment period. This paper analyses the phenomenon and gives recommendations for recruitment procedures in clinical trials on pain.
methodsChanges in pain intensity scores of 44 chronic neck pain patients (6 males and 36 females; mean age: 45.3±13.2 years) between the first telephone contact and baseline assessment were analyzed. Inclusion criterion was a mean pain intensity of ≥40 on a 0-100 numerical rating scale during the last three months. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and parametric/non-parametric correlation coefficients.
resultsAverage pain intensity score decreased significantly from 60.3±13.3 at telephone interview to 38.1±21.7 at baseline assessment. This represents a relative change of 36.8%. A weak but significant negative correlation was found between number of days between assessments and pain rating differences. There was a positive correlation between change of pain intensity and the pain level at the first contact, indicating that the decreased pain ratings over time were also dependent on the initial pain rating.
conclusionsThe clinically significant changes in pain intensity were weakly related to waiting time and moderately dependent on initial pain intensity, suggesting regression to the mean. The natural course of the disease and the Hawthorne effect are also discussed as contributing factors.
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.