Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Nov 1;26(11):733-740.
doi: 10.1093/pm/pnaf071.

Quantifying the impact of concurrent analgesic use in interventional pain trials: a meta-epidemiologic study

Balaji V Sridhar  1 , Andrew Humbert  2   3 , Adam Babitts  2 , Carina A Staab  4 , Clinton J Daniels  2   5 , Malka Dhillon  2 , Patrick J Heagerty  3   6 , Joshua Z Goldenberg  7 , Mark P Jensen  2 , Pradeep Suri  2   3   5   8
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Quantifying the impact of concurrent analgesic use in interventional pain trials: a meta-epidemiologic study

Balaji V Sridhar et al. Pain Med. .

Abstract

Importance: The modest effect sizes of most pain treatments make it essential that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) use methods that clearly define treatment effects of interest and consider the role of concurrent treatments.

Objective: This study aims to determine how frequently concurrent analgesic use is reported in interventional pain RCTs and how accounting for analgesic use can affect estimates of pain intensity outcomes.

Design: Meta-epidemiologic study.

Methods: We conducted a study of concurrent analgesic use among RCTs from a recent systematic review of non-surgical interventional pain treatments (n = 37). We calculated the prevalence of methods used to report concurrent analgesic use. We performed meta-analyses to compare treatment effects on pain intensity with vs without accounting for concurrent analgesic use via a novel quantitative composite outcome, the "QPAC1.5."

Results: About half of interventional pain RCTs reported concurrent analgesic use, but only one directly accounted for concurrent analgesic use in their pain intensity outcome. Analyses accounting for concurrent analgesics using the QPAC1.5 substantially increased the estimated treatment effect of interventions on pain intensity by an average of -0.45 numeric rating scale points (95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; P < 0.001), as compared to analyses that did not adjust for analgesic use.

Conclusions and relevance: Concurrent analgesic use is sometimes reported in interventional pain RCTs, but rarely accounted for when examining treatment effects on pain intensity. Accounting for concurrent analgesic use may mitigate the effects of that use and substantially impact estimated treatment effect sizes.

Keywords: analgesics; bias; epidemiology; randomized controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education. Relieving pain in America: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. 2011. - PubMed
    1. Dzau V, Pizzo P. Relieving pain in America: insights from an Institute of Medicine Committee. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1507-1508. - PubMed
    1. Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, Al E. Noninvasive Treatments for Low Back Pain. AHRQ; 2016. - PubMed
    1. Skelly A, Chou R, Dettori J, Al E. Noninvasive Nonpharmacological Treatment for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review Update. AHRQ; 2020. - PubMed
    1. Suri P, Heagerty PJ, Korpak A, et al. Improving power and accuracy in randomized controlled trials of pain treatments by accounting for concurrent analgesic use. J Pain. 2023;24(2):332-344. 10.1016/j.jpain.2022.09.017 - DOI - PMC - PubMed