Search

Objective: To examine whether exclusions of patients from the analysis of randomized trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. Design: Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. Data sources: 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. Methods: Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. Results: 39 trials (23 %) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77 %) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95 %-confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (2=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. Conclusion: Exclusions of patients from the analysis in randomised trials often result in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

Chronic pain is associated with generalized hypersensitivity and impaired endogenous pain modulation (conditioned pain modulation; CPM). Despite extensive research, their prevalence in chronic pain patients is unknown. This study investigated the prevalence and potential determinants of widespread central hypersensitivity and described the distribution of CPM in chronic pain patients.We examined 464 consecutive chronic pain patients for generalized hypersensitivity and CPM using pressure algometry at the second toe and cold pressor test. Potential determinants of generalized central hypersensitivity were studied using uni- and multivariate regression analyses. Prevalence of generalized central hypersensitivity was calculated for the 5th, 10th and 25th percentile of normative values for pressure algometry obtained by a previous large study on healthy volunteers. CPM was addressed on a descriptive basis, since normative values are not available.Depending on the percentile of normative values considered, generalized central hypersensitivity affected 17.5-35.3% of patients. 23.7% of patients showed no increase in pressure pain threshold after cold pressor test. Generalized central hypersensitivity was more frequent and CPM less effective in women than in men. Unclearly classifiable pain syndromes showed higher frequencies of generalized central hypersensitivity than other pain syndromes.Although prevalent in chronic pain, generalized central hypersensitivity is not present in every patient. An individual assessment is therefore required in order to detect altered pain processing. The broad basic knowledge about central hypersensitivity now needs to be translated into concrete clinical consequences, so that patients can be offered an individually tailored mechanism-based treatment.

The absorption of digoxin has been investigated in 8 patients before and after successful treatment of severe right heart failure. 3H-digoxin 0.1 mg as a solution, and un-labelled digoxin 0.25 mg as a tablet, were given to fasted patients. Blood samples were taken at various time intervals up to 120 hours and urine was collected over the same period. The concentrations of labelled digoxin in plasma and urine were measured in a liquid scintillation counter, unlabelled digoxin was estimated by radioimmunoassay, and various pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. There was no significant difference in the plasma concentration curves in severe right heart failure and after its successful treatment, nor did any of the calculated pharmacokinetic parameters change significantly. Therefore, inhibition of the absorption of digoxin appears unlikely. In an additional study to estimate absolute bioavailability two different groups of patients in severe right heart failure were given 3H-digoxin 0.1 mg or unlabelled digoxin 0.25 mg i.v. and the pharmacokinetic parameters were compared with those from the previous study. The bioavailability of the 3H-digoxin solution and of the digoxin tablet were in the same range as values previously published for healthy volunteers, and patients both with and without cardiac failure.

BACKGROUND Chronic pain is associated with generalized hypersensitivity and impaired endogenous pain modulation (conditioned pain modulation; CPM). Despite extensive research, their prevalence in chronic pain patients is unknown. This study investigated the prevalence and potential determinants of widespread central hypersensitivity and described the distribution of CPM in chronic pain patients. METHODS We examined 464 consecutive chronic pain patients for generalized hypersensitivity and CPM using pressure algometry at the second toe and cold pressor test. Potential determinants of generalized central hypersensitivity were studied using uni- and multivariate regression analyses. Prevalence of generalized central hypersensitivity was calculated for the 5th, 10th and 25th percentile of normative values for pressure algometry obtained by a previous large study on healthy volunteers. CPM was addressed on a descriptive basis, since normative values are not available. RESULTS Depending on the percentile of normative values considered, generalized central hypersensitivity affected 17.5-35.3% of patients. 23.7% of patients showed no increase in pressure pain threshold after cold pressor test. Generalized central hypersensitivity was more frequent and CPM less effective in women than in men. Unclearly classifiable pain syndromes showed higher frequencies of generalized central hypersensitivity than other pain syndromes. CONCLUSIONS Although prevalent in chronic pain, generalized central hypersensitivity is not present in every patient. An individual assessment is therefore required in order to detect altered pain processing. The broad basic knowledge about central hypersensitivity now needs to be translated into concrete clinical consequences, so that patients can be offered an individually tailored mechanism-based treatment.