Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale

被引:4253
作者
Farrar, JT
Young, JP
LaMoreaux, L
Werth, JL
Poole, RM
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Dept Biostat & Epidemiol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Pfizer Global Res & Dev, Ann Arbor, MI USA
关键词
analgesics; human; numeric rating scale; pain measurement; clinical trials; treatment outcome;
D O I
10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Pain intensity is frequently measured on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), where 0 = no pain and 10 = worst possible pain. However, it is difficult to interpret the clinical importance of changes from baseline on this scale (such as a 1- or 2-point change). To date, there are no data driven estimates for clinically important differences in pain intensity scales used for chronic pain studies. We have estimated a clinically important difference on this scale by relating it to global assessments of change in multiple studies of chronic pain. Data on 2724 subjects from 10 recently completed placebo-controlled clinical trials of pregabalin in diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis were used. The studies had similar designs and measurement instruments, including the PI-NRS, collected in a daily diary, and the standard seven-point patient global impression of change (PGIC), collected at the endpoint. The changes in the PI-NRS from baseline to the endpoint were compared to the PGIC for each subject. Categories of 'much improved' and 'very much improved' were used as determinants of a clinically important difference and the relationship to the Pl-NIRS was explored using graphs, box plots, and sensitivity/specificity analyses. A consistent relationship between the change in PI-NRS and the PGIC was demonstrated regardless of study, disease type, age, sex, study result, or treatment group. On average, a reduction of approximately two points or a reduction of approximately 30% in the PI-NRS represented a clinically important difference. The relationship between percent change and the PGIC was also consistent regardless of baseline pain, while higher baseline scores required larger raw changes to represent a clinically important difference. The application of these results to future studies may provide a standard definition of clinically important improvement in clinical trials of chronic pain therapies. Use of a standard outcome across chronic pain studies would greatly enhance the comparability, validity, and clinical applicability of these studies. (C) 2001 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:149 / 158
页数:10
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: A comparison of different instruments
    Beurskens, AJHM
    deVet, HCW
    Koke, AJA
    [J]. PAIN, 1996, 65 (01) : 71 - 76
  • [2] WHICH OUTCOME MEASURES SHOULD BE USED IN RHEUMATOID-ARTHRITIS CLINICAL-TRIALS - CLINICAL AND QUALITY-OF-LIFE MEASURES RESPONSIVENESS TO TREATMENT IN A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
    BUCHBINDER, R
    BOMBARDIER, C
    YEUNG, M
    TUGWELL, P
    [J]. ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM, 1995, 38 (11): : 1568 - 1580
  • [3] The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Bucher, HC
    Guyatt, GH
    Griffith, LE
    Walter, SD
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) : 683 - 691
  • [4] A DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC N-OF-1 RANDOMIZED TRIAL
    COOK, DJ
    GUYATT, GH
    DAVIS, C
    WILLAN, A
    MCILROY, W
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PSYCHIATRIE, 1993, 38 (04): : 251 - 254
  • [5] THE NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT - A CLINICALLY USEFUL MEASURE OF TREATMENT EFFECT
    COOK, RJ
    SACKETT, DL
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 310 (6977) : 452 - 454
  • [6] COOPER SA, 1976, CLIN PHARMACOL THER, V20, P241
  • [7] Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures
    Farrar, JT
    Portenoy, RK
    Berlin, JA
    Kinman, JL
    Strom, BL
    [J]. PAIN, 2000, 88 (03) : 287 - 294
  • [8] The fallacy of using a solitary outcome measure as the standard for satisfactory pain treatment outcome
    Follett, KA
    [J]. PAIN FORUM, 1999, 8 (04): : 189 - 191
  • [9] GOLDSMITH CH, 1993, J RHEUMATOL, V20, P561
  • [10] Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials
    Guyatt, GH
    Juniper, EF
    Walter, SD
    Griffith, LE
    Goldstein, RS
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1998, 316 (7132) : 690 - 693