Search

Clinical trial participants often require additional instruction to prevent idiosyncratic interpretations regarding completion of patient-reported outcomes. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership developed a training system with specific, standardized guidance regarding daily average pain intensity ratings. A 3-week exploratory study among participants with low-back pain, osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy was conducted, randomly assigning participants to 1 of 3 groups: training with human pain assessment (T+); training with automated pain assessment (T); or no training with automated pain assessment (C). Although most measures of validity and reliability did not reveal significant differences between groups, some benefit was observed in discriminant validity, amount of missing data, and ranking order of least, worst, and average pain intensity ratings for participants in Group T+ compared with the other groups. Prediction of greater reliability in average pain intensity ratings in Group T+ compared with the other groups was not supported, which might indicate that training produces ratings that reflect the reality of temporal pain fluctuations. Results of this novel study suggest the need to test the training system in a prospective analgesic treatment trial.

Assessment of treatment safety is 1 of the primary goals of clinical trials. Organizations and working groups have created reporting guidelines for adverse events (AEs). Previous research examining AE reporting for pharmacologic clinical trials of analgesics in major pain journals found many reporting inadequacies, suggesting that analgesic trials are not adhering to existing AE reporting guidelines. The present systematic review documented AE reporting in 3 main pain journals for nonpharmacologic, noninterventional (NP/NI) trials examining pain treatments. To broaden our pool of nonpharmacologic trials, we also included trials examining acupuncture, leech therapy, and noninvasive stimulation techniques (eg, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation). We documented AE reporting at 2 levels of specificity using coding manuals based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harms reporting standards and Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) AE reporting checklist. We identified a number of inadequacies in AE reporting across the 3 journals. For example, using the ACTTION coding manual, we found that less than one-half of the trials reported specific AE assessment methods; approximately one-third of the trials reported withdrawals due to AEs for each study arm; and about one-fourth of the trials reported all specific AEs. We also examined differences in AE reporting across several trial characteristics, finding that AE reporting was generally more detailed in trials with patients versus those using healthy volunteers undergoing experimentally evoked pain. These results suggest that investigators conducting and reporting NP/NI clinical trials are not adequately describing the assessment and occurrence of AEs., (Copyright © 2014 International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.)

Missing data in clinical trials can bias estimates of treatment effects. Statisticians and government agencies recommend making every effort to minimize missing data. Although statistical methods are available to accommodate missing data, their validity depends on often untestable assumptions about why the data are missing. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency with which randomized clinical trials published in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain) reported strategies to prevent missing data, the number of participants who completed the study (ie, completers), and statistical methods to accommodate missing data. A total of 161 randomized clinical trials investigating treatments for pain, published between 2006 and 2012, were included. Approximately two-thirds of the trials reported at least 1 method that could potentially minimize missing data, the most common being allowance of concomitant medications. Only 61% of the articles explicitly reported the number of patients who were randomized and completed the trial. Although only 14 articles reported that all randomized participants completed the study, fewer than 50% of the articles reported a statistical method to accommodate missing data. Last observation carried forward imputation was used most commonly (42%). Thirteen articles reported more than 1 method to accommodate missing data; however, the majority of methods, including last observation carried forward, were not methods currently recommended by statisticians. Authors, reviewers, and editors should prioritize proper reporting of missing data and appropriate use of methods to accommodate them so as to improve the deficiencies identified in this systematic review., (Copyright © 2014 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Performing multiple analyses in clinical trials can inflate the probability of a type I error, or the chance of falsely concluding a significant effect of the treatment. Strategies to minimize type I error probability include prespecification of primary analyses and statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons, when applicable. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of primary analysis reporting and frequency of multiplicity adjustment in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN®). A total of 161 randomized controlled trials investigating noninvasive pharmacological treatments or interventional treatments for pain, published between 2006 and 2012, were included. Only 52% of trials identified a primary analysis, and only 10% of trials reported prespecification of that analysis. Among the 33 articles that identified a primary analysis with multiple testing, 15 (45%) adjusted for multiplicity; of those 15, only 2 (13%) reported prespecification of the adjustment methodology. Trials in clinical pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials identified a primary analysis more often than trials in experimental pain models and non-industry-sponsored trials, respectively. The results of this systematic review demonstrate deficiencies in the reporting and possibly the execution of primary analyses in published analgesic trials. These deficiencies can be rectified by changes in, or better enforcement of, journal policies pertaining to requirements for the reporting of analyses of clinical trial data., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)