ArticlePain reports
Feasibility of a patient-centered method to determine meaningful change in pain intensity on a survey of patients with a history of cancer.
Article in Pain reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Current methods of determining minimally important differences (MIDs) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) do not incorporate individual patient values. Objectives: This study tested the feasibility of having cancer patients define a personally meaningful change in pain intensity, a method we have termed Precision PROs. Methods: Adults with cancer and pain (n = 231) completed an electronic questionnaire twice over 2 weeks. Participants were then given their pain intensity scores with an explanation of score meaning. Participants then defined their own MIDs for an increase and decrease in pain intensity. Participants also answered 3 questions testing their understanding of the MID concept. Results: The majority of participants could define an individually meaningful increase (97% [n = 223]) and individually meaningful decrease (98% [n = 226]) in pain intensity. Seventy-two percent of participants (n = 166) answered all test questions correctly and 26% (n = 60) answered 2 of 3 correctly. Using the individual MID, 32% (95% CI: 25.3, 40.0) of the sample experienced a meaningful change between the 2 surveys, more than other methods ( Conclusions: This study showed the feasibility of the Precision PRO individual MID, which could be used in clinical care or clinical trials. Further studies are needed to compare the individual MID to current methods.
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.