Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36220482›Full record

ArticleThe journal of pain2023

Improving Power and Accuracy in Randomized Controlled Trials of Pain Treatments by Accounting for Concurrent Analgesic Use.

Pradeep Suri, Patrick J Heagerty, Anna Korpak, Mark P Jensen, Laura S Gold, Kwun C G Chan, Andrew Timmons, Janna Friedly, Jeffrey G Jarvik, Aaron Baraff

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of pain, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07589127 (GENicular Nerve Block in KNEE Arthroplasty - The GENKNEE Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT07589127 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

GENicular Nerve Block in KNEE Arthroplasty - The GENKNEE Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHelse Møre og Romsdal HFRan2026 to 2029Enrolled70ConditionsOsteoarthritis (OA) of the Knee, Total Knee Arthroplasty, Genicular Nerve BlockArmsPreoperative genicular nerve block (GNB), Placebo nerve block
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

10 authors.

Pradeep SuriSeattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Division of Rehabilitation Care Services, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Clinical Learning, Evidence, and Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: pradeep.suri@va.gov.
Patrick J HeagertyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Anna KorpakSeattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington.
Mark P JensenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Laura S GoldClinical Learning, Evidence, and Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Departments of Radiology and Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Kwun C G ChanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Andrew TimmonsSeattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington.
Janna FriedlyClinical Learning, Evidence, and Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Jeffrey G JarvikClinical Learning, Evidence, and Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Departments of Radiology and Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Aaron BaraffSeattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
UW Core Center for Clinical Research of Musculoskeletal ConditionsP30AR072572 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JEFFREY G JARVIK, Pradeep Suri · 2017 to 2026
$8.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 0 to 10 numeric rating scale of pain intensity is a standard outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pain treatments. For individuals taking analgesics, there may be a disparity between "observed" pain intensity (pain intensity with concurrent analgesic use) and pain intensity without concurrent analgesic use (what the numeric rating scale would be had analgesics not been taken). Using a contemporary causal inference framework, we compare analytic methods that can potentially account for concurrent analgesic use, first in statistical simulations, and second in analyses of real (non-simulated) data from an RCT of lumbar epidural steroid injections. The default analytic method was ignoring analgesic use, which is the most common approach in pain RCTs. Compared to ignoring analgesic use and other analytic methods, simulations showed that a quantitative pain and analgesia composite outcome based on adding 1.5 points to pain intensity for those who were taking an analgesic (the QPAC

Indexed as

AnalgesicsAnalgesics, OpioidHumansPainPain ManagementPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesicsAnalgesics, Opioidlow back painopioidsoutcomesPainpower

Identifiers

PMID36220482
PMCPMC9898095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.