ArticleThe journal of pain2025
Methodology for determining minimally clinically important differences in acute pain intensity with the double stopwatch technique.
Article in The journal of pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in acute pain intensity have not been well established. Conventional approaches for estimating MCIDs require an independent reference scale, with a threshold that must be presumed to accurately classify meaningful change in pain for all study participants, to serve as an anchor. The double stopwatch technique is the gold standard for measuring the time to meaningful relief, where participants actively press the second stopwatch when they experience pain relief that is meaningful to them. This technique eliminates the problem of misclassification with arbitrary anchors at a single time point, but the censored nature of the data is not amenable for determining MCIDs using standard methods. We propose a stopwatch-based MCID methodology that employs the double stopwatch technique to identify individualized thresholds for meaningful change in pain. This approach enables direct classification of changes in pain for each participant based on whether they perceived the change as meaningful and whether it exceeded the study cut-off being tested. Pain values of participants who do not achieve meaningful relief are incorporated into the analysis to address censoring and avoid bias. The performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity) of different thresholds to serve as an MCID can be estimated using standard approaches with variance estimates derived by cluster bootstrapping. The advantages of the stopwatch-based MCID methodology are illustrated relative to a conventional approach using data from a randomized trial in third molar extraction. PERSPECTIVE: This article describes a methodology for determining MCIDs using the double stopwatch technique, the gold standard for assessing meaningful changes in acute pain. This methodology can be used to establish MCIDs in different acute pain settings, providing a useful basis to evaluate the meaningfulness of clinical trial results.
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.