Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2021
Comparison of weekly and daily recall of pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 trial of cabozantinib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).The patient · 2023Pooled it
- Mean of Daily Versus Single Week Recall-Based Pain Quality Assessments in Neuropathic Pain Trials: Implications for Assay Sensitivity.The journal of pain · 2024Trial
- Undergoing Lung Surgery (PSA-Lung) was appropriate for symptom assessment after discharge.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Prevalence and associations of fatigue in childhood atopic dermatitis: A cross-sectional study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionScant evidence reveals whether the use of weekly versus daily pain ratings leads to meaningful differences when measuring pain as a clinical trial outcome. We compared the ability of weekly ratings and descriptors of daily ratings to evaluate pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial.
methodsParticipants (
resultsFor both pain constructs, the weekly rating was consistently higher than the mean daily rating and lower than the maximum daily rating yet was moderately to highly correlated with both daily rating descriptors (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.55-0.94). The weekly rating and the daily rating descriptors consistently detected change in pain for the study sample and participant subgroups. Substantial agreement existed between the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst when used with trial protocol opioid criteria to detect treatment response (Cohen's
conclusionUse of daily over weekly ratings delivered no added benefit in evaluating pain in this clinical trial. This study is the first to compare weekly and daily recall to measure pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial, and the pattern of differences in ratings that we observed is consistent with other recent evaluations of weekly and daily symptom reporting.
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.