Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33172597›Full record

Trial reportThe journal of pain2021

III. Detecting Treatment Effects in Clinical Trials With Different Indices of Pain Intensity Derived From Ecological Momentary Assessment.

Stefan Schneider, Doerte U Junghaenel, Masakatsu Ono, Joan E Broderick, Arthur A Stone

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The journal of pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefan SchneiderDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, California. Electronic address: schneids@usc.edu.
Doerte U JunghaenelDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, California.
Masakatsu OnoDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, California.
Joan E BroderickDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, California.
Arthur A StoneDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, California; Deparment of Psychology, University of Southern California, California.
University of Southern California · US

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

Pain intensity represents the primary outcome in most pain clinical trials. Identifying methods to measure aspects of pain that are most sensitive to treatment may facilitate discovery of effective interventions. In this third of 3 articles examining alternative indices of pain intensity derived from ecological momentary assessments (EMA), we compare treatment effects based on Average Pain, Maximum Pain, Minimum Pain, Pain Variability, Time in High Pain, Time in Low Pain, and Pain After Wake-Up. We also examine which indices contribute to Patient Global Impressions of Change (PGIC). Data came from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of milnacipran for fibromyalgia treatment; 2,084 patients provided >1 million EMA pain intensity ratings over 24 (Study 1) or 26 (Study 2) treatment weeks. Pain Variability and Time in High Pain produced significantly smaller treatment effects than Average Pain; other pain indices showed effects that were numerically smaller, but not significantly different from Average Pain. Changes in all pain indices were significantly associated with PGIC, with improvements in Maximum Pain and in Pain Variability offering small incremental contributions to understanding PGIC over Average Pain. Results suggest that different pain indices could be used to detect treatment effects in pain clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Alternative summary measures of pain intensity derived from EMA may broaden the scope of outcomes useful in pain clinical trials. In this analysis of a pharmacological treatment for fibromyalgia, most pain summary measures indicated similar effects; improvements in Maximum Pain and Pain Variability contributed to understanding PGIC over Average Pain.

Indexed as

Ecological Momentary AssessmentPain MeasurementPatient Outcome AssessmentSeverity of Illness IndexAdultAgedAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticFemaleFibromyalgiaHumansMaleMiddle AgedMilnacipranAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticMilnacipranclinical trialsecological momentary assessmentpain indicesPain intensityPatient Global Impression of Changetreatment effects

Identifiers

PMID33172597
PMCPMC8043984
OpenAlexW3093951630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.