Search

Thorough assessment and reporting of adverse events (AEs) facilitates a detailed understanding of a treatment's risk-benefit profile. Although the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2004 statement provides recommendations regarding AE reporting, adherence to these standards is often inadequate. We investigated AE reporting in clinical trials of intravenous and invasive pain treatments published in 6 major anesthesiology and pain journals between 2000 to 2003 and 2006 to 2012. We examined whether AE reporting improved after publication of the 2004 CONSORT recommendations and also comprehensively reviewed AE assessment using the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) AE reporting recommendations. No improvement was found overall in CONSORT harms reporting scores from pre- to postpublication of the CONSORT recommendations, with only 5 of 10 fulfilled on average. AE reporting assessed using the ACTTION coding manual was generally inadequate, and 8% of articles failed to report any AE information at all. Anesthesiology and pain journals were similar in AE reporting quality, although industry-sponsored trials reported more AE information than nonindustry sponsored trials. Improvement is needed in AE reporting in analgesic clinical trials. The CONSORT checklist and ACTTION AE recommendations can assist investigators and editors in improving clinical trial transparency and quality., Perspective: This systematic review of AE reporting in intravenous and invasive pain treatment trials shows that little improvement has been made since the 2004 CONSORT harms reporting guidelines. Better assessment and reporting of treatment AEs is necessary to understand the full clinical effect of intravenous and invasive treatments., (Copyright © 2016 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: The magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity., Perspective: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Pain intensity assessments are used widely in human pain research, and their transparent reporting is crucial to interpreting study results. In this systematic review, we examined reporting of human pain intensity assessments and related elements (eg, administration frequency, time period assessed, type of pain) in all empirical pain studies with adult participants in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain) between January 2011 and July 2012. Of the 262 articles identified, close to one-quarter (24%) ambiguously reported the pain intensity assessment. Elements related to the pain intensity assessment were frequently not reported: 31% did not identify the time period participants were asked to rate, 43% failed to report the type of pain intensity rated, and 58% did not report the specific location or pain condition rated. No differences were observed between randomized clinical trials and experimental (eg, studies involving experimental manipulation without random group assignment and blinding) and observational studies in reporting quality. The ability to understand study results, and to compare results between studies, is compromised when pain intensity assessments are not fully reported. Recommendations are presented regarding key details for investigators to consider when conducting and reporting pain intensity assessments in human adults., Perspective: This systematic review demonstrates that publications of pain research often incompletely report pain intensity assessments and their details (eg, administration frequency, type of pain). Failure to fully report details of pain intensity assessments creates ambiguity in interpreting research results. Recommendations are proposed to increase transparent reporting., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Peer-reviewed publications of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the primary means of disseminating research findings. "Spin" in RCT publications is misrepresentation of statistically nonsignificant research findings to suggest treatment benefit. Spin can influence the way readers interpret clinical trials and use the information to make decisions about treatments and medical policies. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency with which 4 types of spin were used in publications of analgesic RCTs with nonsignificant primary analyses in 6 major pain journals. In the 76 articles included in our sample, 28% of the abstracts and 29% of the main texts emphasized secondary analyses with P values <.05; 22% of abstracts and 29% of texts emphasized treatment benefit based on nonsignificant primary results; 14% of abstracts and 18% of texts emphasized within-group improvements over time, rather than primary between-group comparisons; and 13% of abstracts and 10% of texts interpreted a nonsignificant difference between groups in a superiority study as comparable effectiveness. When considering the article conclusion sections, 21% did not mention the nonsignificant primary result, 22% were presented with no uncertainty or qualification, 30% did not acknowledge that future research was required, and 8% recommended the intervention for clinical use., Perspective: This article identifies relatively frequent "spin" in analgesic RCTs. These findings highlight a need for authors, reviewers, and editors to be more cognizant of how analgesic RCT results are presented and attempt to minimize spin in future clinical trial publications., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. All rights reserved.)