Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35295426›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2021

What Is the Numerical Nature of Pain Relief?

Andrew D Vigotsky, Siddharth R Tiwari, James W Griffith, A Vania Apkarian

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05336500 (Effectiveness of Education to Keep the Abdomen Relaxed Versus Contracted During Pilates Exercises in Patients With Primary Chronic Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05336500 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of Education to Keep the Abdomen Relaxed Versus Contracted During Pilates Exercises in Patients With Primary Chronic Low Back Pain: a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentro Universitário Augusto MottaRan2022 to 2023Enrolled152ConditionsLow Back PainArmsPilates method exercises
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Andrew D VigotskyDepartments of Biomedical Engineering and Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.
Siddharth R TiwariCenter for Translational Pain Research, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.
James W GriffithCenter for Translational Pain Research, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.
A Vania ApkarianCenter for Translational Pain Research, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.

Funding

Rodent Behavior CoreP50DA044121 · NIDA · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI APKARIAN, APKAR VANIA · 2018 to 2022
$9.0M
NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA044121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pain relief, or a decrease in self-reported pain intensity, is frequently the primary outcome of pain clinical trials. Investigators commonly report pain relief in one of two ways: using raw units (additive) or using percentage units (multiplicative). However, additive and multiplicative scales have different assumptions and are incompatible with one another. In this work, we describe the assumptions and corollaries of additive and multiplicative models of pain relief to illuminate the issue from statistical and clinical perspectives. First, we explain the math underlying each model and illustrate these points using simulations, for which readers are assumed to have an understanding of linear regression. Next, we connect this math to clinical interpretations, stressing the importance of statistical models that accurately represent the underlying data; for example, how using percent pain relief can mislead clinicians if the data are actually additive. These theoretical discussions are supported by empirical data from four longitudinal studies of patients with subacute and chronic pain. Finally, we discuss self-reported pain intensity as a measurement construct, including its philosophical limitations and how clinical pain differs from acute pain measured during psychophysics experiments. This work has broad implications for clinical pain research, ranging from statistical modeling of trial data to the use of minimal clinically important differences and patient-clinician communication.

Indexed as

ANCOVAclinical trialspainstatistical modelstreatment effects

Identifiers

PMID35295426
PMCPMC8915564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.