Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37662705›Full record

ReviewContemporary clinical trials communications2023

Sham controls in device trials for chronic pain - tricky in practice-a review article.

Selina Johnson, Andreas Goebel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Comment on "Oxycodone combined with pulsed radiofrequency for refractory cancer pain from spinal metastases: a randomized controlled study".Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Selina JohnsonWalton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Fazakerley, Liverpool, L9 7BB, UK.
Andreas GoebelWalton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Fazakerley, Liverpool, L9 7BB, UK.
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Chronic pain affects one in four people and this figure is likely to increase further in line with an ageing population. Efforts to evaluate nonpharmacological interventions to support this patient population have become a priority for pain research. For device trials, the use of a sham control can add to the scientific validity and quality of a study. However, only a small proportion of pain trials include a sham control, and many are of poor quality. To facilitate the conduct of high-quality trials there is a need for a comprehensive overview to guide researchers within this area. The objective of this review was to synthesise the published data to address this need. Methods: We identified studies that considered the evaluation, design, and conduct of sham-controlled trials in chronic pain by searching MEDLINE, CINAHL and Science Direct to November 2022. Studies that included sufficient content to inform the conduct/design of future research were included. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to identify themes that require consideration when conducting sham-controlled trials. These are presented as a narrative review. Results: 37 articles were included. Identified themes related to the type of sham device, sham design, bias, study population and ethics. Conclusions: To conduct good quality research the challenges surrounding the use of sham interventions need to be better considered. We highlight salient issues and provide recommendations for the conduct and reporting of sham-controlled device trials in chronic pain.

Indexed as

Chronic painConductDevicemethodsReviewSham control

Identifiers

PMID37662705
PMCPMC10474149
OpenAlexW4386074766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.