Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale
- PMID: 11690728
- DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9
Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale
Abstract
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 PI-NRS 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.
Comment in
-
What is a "clinically meaningful" reduction in pain?Pain. 2001 Nov;94(2):131-132. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00371-2. Pain. 2001. PMID: 11690725 Review. No abstract available.
-
Comment on Rice ASC, Maton S, the Postherpetic Neuralgia Study Group (UK), gabapentin in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study.Pain. 2002 Apr;96(3):410-411. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00065-9. Pain. 2002. PMID: 11973022 No abstract available.
References
-
- Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996;65:71-76.
-
- Buchbinder R, Bombardier C, Yeung M, Tugwell P. 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. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:1568-1580.
-
- Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:683-691.
-
- Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Davis C, Willan A, McIlroy W. A diagnostic and therapeutic N-of-1 randomized trial. Can J Psychiatry. 1993;38:251-254.
-
- Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. Br Med J. 1995;310:452-454.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous