ArticlePain reports2024
Validation of a holistic composite outcome measure for the evaluation of chronic pain interventions.
Article in Pain reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Five-year outcomes from a multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive interspinous fixation versus open direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- The greater the pleiotropic effects, the greater the benefits - cannabis as a "biopsychosocial" drug: a mixed-methods study on chronic non-cancer pain.Journal of cannabis research · 2026Article
- Objective, Same-Day SCS Trials with ECAP-Controlled Closed-Loop Therapy: Depth of Response is Maintained from Trial to 12 months.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Response to De Paepe et al.Pain reports · 2025Article
- Capturing individual experiences: advancing core outcome sets in pain. Comment on Taylor et al. (2024).Pain reports · 2025Article
- Multi-modal and Multi-view Cervical Spondylosis Imaging Dataset.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic pain is a personal experience influenced by multiple biopsychosocial factors. Using a pain intensity measure alone to assess the effectiveness of a chronic pain intervention fails to fully evaluate its impact on the multifaceted chronic pain experience. The holistic minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a composite outcome developed to provide a comprehensive assessment of chronic pain in response to intervention, across 5 outcome domains: pain intensity, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, physical, and emotional function. To focus on domains where the individual need is greatest, the holistic MCID reflects the cumulative MCID averaged over only the domains where subjects were impaired preintervention. Objectives: To assess the internal and construct validity of the Holistic MCID score to inform its future use as an evidence-based tool. Methods: This validation study was undertaken using data from the EVOKE trial with 111 patients up to 24-month follow-up. Internal consistency of the holistic MCID was assessed using Cronbach alpha statistic and dimensional exploration using principal component analysis. Results: The holistic MCID measure demonstrated strong internal consistency with Cronbach alpha >0.7 at all follow-ups. Principal component analysis showed one overarching holistic dimension to be present in the composite. Construct validity was demonstrated by an increase in the holistic MCID score being associated with both increased Patients' Global Impression of Change, EuroQol visual analogue scale score, and each of the outcome domains in a "leave-one-out" analysis (all Conclusion: The holistic MCID provides a valid measure for the comprehensive, personalized assessment of response after a chronic pain intervention. The validity of the holistic MCID requires further confirmation in other chronic pain populations and with different interventions.
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.