What Is the Numerical Nature of Pain Relief?

Andrew D Vigotsky, Siddharth R Tiwari, James W Griffith, A Vania Apkarian, Andrew D Vigotsky, Siddharth R Tiwari, James W Griffith, A Vania Apkarian

Abstract

Pain relief, or a decrease in self-reported pain intensity, is frequently the primary outcome of pain clinical trials. Investigators commonly report pain relief in one of two ways: using raw units (additive) or using percentage units (multiplicative). However, additive and multiplicative scales have different assumptions and are incompatible with one another. In this work, we describe the assumptions and corollaries of additive and multiplicative models of pain relief to illuminate the issue from statistical and clinical perspectives. First, we explain the math underlying each model and illustrate these points using simulations, for which readers are assumed to have an understanding of linear regression. Next, we connect this math to clinical interpretations, stressing the importance of statistical models that accurately represent the underlying data; for example, how using percent pain relief can mislead clinicians if the data are actually additive. These theoretical discussions are supported by empirical data from four longitudinal studies of patients with subacute and chronic pain. Finally, we discuss self-reported pain intensity as a measurement construct, including its philosophical limitations and how clinical pain differs from acute pain measured during psychophysics experiments. This work has broad implications for clinical pain research, ranging from statistical modeling of trial data to the use of minimal clinically important differences and patient-clinician communication.

Keywords: ANCOVA; clinical trials; pain; statistical models; treatment effects.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2021 Vigotsky, Tiwari, Griffith and Apkarian.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Graphical illustration of the hierarchical model from which patients' pain scores are sampled. The broad yellow (light gray) distribution is the between-patient distribution (level 2), from which each patient's mean pain score is sampled. Each red (dark gray) distribution is a within-patient distribution (level 1), from which single measurements are sampled.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Properties of additive and multiplicative data. We simulated data with additive (left) and multiplicative (right) assumptions. (A) Relationships between pre- and post-intervention pain scores when improvements are additive (left) and multiplicative (right). Note the additive post-intervention scores are relatively homoscedastic, while the variance of multiplicative post-intervention scores increases with increasing pre-intervention scores. (B) Negative relationships between change scores and pre-intervention scores. Gray areas in (B) represent regions where points are not possible due to measurement constraints; that is, because a change score cannot be >|100|.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Simulations of additive and multiplicative changes reveal the effect of different intraclass correlation coefficients on the slope between change scores and pre-intervention scores. Additive effects have slopes that trend toward zero with increasing ICC's, while multiplicative effects always have a negative slope no matter their ICC.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Simulations of additive and multiplicative changes reveal differential residual behavior for raw and log-transformed ANCOVA models. (Left) data generated with have an additive structure have homoscedastic residuals when fit with a standard ANCOVA (top) but heteroscedastic residuals when fit with a log-transformed ANCOVA (bottom). (Right) data generated with a multiplicative structure have heteroscedastic residuals when fit on their raw scale (top) but homoscedastic residuals when log-transformed (bottom).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Relationships between pre-intervention scores and change scores (top) and post-intervention scores (bottom). (Top) Relationship between pre-intervention scores and change scores. Note that most of the studies have a negative relationship. This could be explained by regression toward the mean or multiplicative effects, in addition to ceiling/floor effects. (Bottom) Relationship between pre-intervention and post-intervention pain scores across all studies. Each study shows a positive relationship between pre- and post-intervention scores; however, the Levodopa study appears to have greater variance in post-intervention scores with greater pre-intervention scores.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Increasing the number of points used for each patient's pre- and post-intervention scores increases the slope between change scores and pre-intervention scores. Each patient's pre- and post-intervention scores were calculated using the mean of x points. By averaging over more points, we should increase the intraclass correlation coefficient. Negative slopes between change scores and pre-intervention scores are indicative of one of two things: (1) regression toward the mean or (2) multiplicative effects. In the datasets that show evidence of being additive, we see marked increases in slopes, indicating that we are decreasing regression toward the mean by including more points. However, because the Levodopa Trial displays multiplicative properties, it is only minimally affected by adding more points.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Absolute values of residuals from additive ANCOVA models. We fit an ANCOVA to each dataset using pre-intervention score and group membership as covariates. From these models, we plotted the absolute values of the residuals as a function of the fitted value. Additive models should be homoscedastic, meaning the magnitudes of the residuals do not change as a function of the response variable. However, multiplicative models have compounding error, such that if you fit them using an additive model, greater predicted values will be associated with larger magnitudes of residual error. Placebo I, Placebo II, and the Prospective Cohort study all exhibit features of additive data. However, the Levodopa Trial exhibits multiplicative properties, as evidenced by the increasing error residual magnitude with increasing fitted values.

References

    1. Gaskin DJ, Richard P. The economic costs of pain in the United States. J Pain. (2012) 13:715–24. 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.03.009
    1. St Sauver JL, Warner DO, Yawn BP, Jacobson DJ, McGree ME, Pankratz JJ, et al. . Why patients visit their doctors: assessing the most prevalent conditions in a defined American population. Mayo Clin Proc. (2013) 88:56–67. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.08.020
    1. Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi M, Abbasifard M, et al. . Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. (2020) 396:1204–22. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9
    1. Mäntyselkä P, Kumpusalo E, Ahonen R, Kumpusalo A, Kauhanen J, Viinamäki H, et al. . Pain as a reason to visit the doctor: a study in Finnish primary health care. Pain. (2001) 89:175–80. 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00361-4
    1. Yazdi-Ravandi S, Taslimi Z, Jamshidian N, Saberi H, Shams J, Haghparast A. Prediction of quality of life by self-efficacy, pain intensity and pain duration in patient with pain disorders. Basic Clin Neurosci. (2013) 4:117–24.
    1. Nasution IK, Lubis NDA, Amelia S, Hocin K. The correlation of pain intensity and quality of life in chronic LBP patients in Adam Malik general hospital. IOP Conf Ser. (2018) 125:012183. 10.1088/1755-1315/125/1/012183
    1. Keene ON. The log transformation is special. Stat Med. (1995) 14:811–9. 10.1002/sim.4780140810
    1. Senn S. Change from baseline and analysis of covariance revisited. Stat Med. (2006) 25:4334–44. 10.1002/sim.2682
    1. Senn S, Julious S. Measurement in clinical trials: a neglected issue for statisticians? Stat Med. (2009) 28:3189–209. 10.1002/sim.3603
    1. Vickers AJ, Altman DG. Statistics notes: analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ. (2001) 323:1123–4. 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1123
    1. Vickers AJ. The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2001) 1:1–4. 10.1186/1471-2288-1-6
    1. Vickers AJ. Change/Percent Change From Baseline. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. (2014). 10.1002/9781118445112.stat06963
    1. Frison L, Pocock SJ. Repeated measures in clinical trials: analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design. Stat Med. (1992) 11:1685–704. 10.1002/sim.4780111304
    1. Borm GF, Fransen J, Lemmens WA. A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. (2007) 60:1234–8. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.02.006
    1. Van Breukelen GJ. ANCOVA versus change from baseline: more power in randomized studies, more bias in nonrandomized studies. J Clin Epidemiol. (2006) 59:920–5. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.007
    1. Vachon-Presseau E, Berger SE, Abdullah TB, Huang L, Cecchi GA, Griffith JW, et al. . Brain and psychological determinants of placebo pill response in chronic pain patients. Nat Commun. (2018) 9:1–15. 10.1038/s41467-018-05859-1
    1. Vachon-Presseau E, Abdullah TB, Berger SE, Huang L, Griffith JW, Schnitzer TJ, et al. . Validating a biosignature predicting placebo pill response in chronic pain in the settings of a randomized controlled trial. Pain. (2021). 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002450. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Reckziegel D, Ttreault P, Ghantous M, Wakaizumi K, Petre B, Huang L, et al. . Sex-specific pharmacotherapy for back pain: a proof-of-concept randomized trial. Pain Ther. (2021). 10.1007/s40122-021-00297-2
    1. Baliki MN, Petre B, Torbey S, Herrmann KM, Huang L, Schnitzer TJ, et al. . Corticostriatal functional connectivity predicts transition to chronic back pain. Nat Neurosci. (2012) 15:1117–9. 10.1038/nn.3153
    1. Chapman C, Loeser J. Issues in Pain Measurement. New York, NY: Raven Press; (1989).
    1. Turk D, Melzack R. Handbook of Pain Assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press; (2011).
    1. Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole MR. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. (2001) 94:149–58. 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9
    1. Smith SM, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP, Eccleston C, Farrar JT, et al. . Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT recommended considerations. Pain. (2020) 161:2446–61. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001952
    1. Olsen MF, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, Tendal B, Hilden J, Hrbjartsson A. Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies. J Clin Epidemiol. (2018) 101:87–106. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007
    1. Senn SJ. Dichotomania: an obsessive compulsive disorder that is badly affecting the quality of analysis of pharmaceutical trials. In: Proceedings of the International Statistical Institute, 55th Session. Sydney, NSW: (2005).
    1. Ferreira ML, Herbert RD, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, Ostelo RW, Nascimento DP, et al. . A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. (2012) 65:253–61. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.018
    1. Ferreira M. Research Note: The smallest worthwhile effect of a health intervention. J Physiother. (2018) 64:272–4. 10.1016/j.jphys.2018.07.008
    1. Senn S. Individual therapy: new dawn or false dawn? Drug Inform J. (2001) 35:1479–94. 10.1177/009286150103500443
    1. Senn S. Individual response to treatment: is it a valid assumption? BMJ. (2004) 329:966–8. 10.1136/bmj.329.7472.966
    1. Senn S. Mastering variation: variance components and personalised medicine. Stat Med. (2016) 35:966–77. 10.1002/sim.6739
    1. Senn S. Statistical pitfalls of personalized medicine. Nature. (2018) 563:619–21. 10.1038/d41586-018-07535-2
    1. Cohen J. The cost of dichotomization. Appl Psychol Meas. (1983) 7:249–53. 10.1177/014662168300700301
    1. Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. (2006) 332:1080. 10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1080
    1. Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, Hampson LV, Hewitt C, Berlin JA, et al. . DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. (2018) 363:k3750. 10.1136/bmj.k3750
    1. Stevens SS. Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects. New York, NY: Routledge; (2017). 10.4324/9781315127675
    1. Yokobe J, Kitahara M, Matsushima M, Uezono S. Preference for different anchor descriptors on visual analogue scales among Japanese patients with chronic pain. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e99891. 10.1371/journal.pone.0099891
    1. Bolanowski SJ, Jr, Gescheider GA. editors. Introduction to conference on ratio scaling of psychological magnitudes. In: Ratio Scaling of Psychological Magnitude. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press; (2013). 10.4324/9780203772201
    1. Ellermeier W, Faulhammer G. Empirical evaluation of axioms fundamental to Stevens's ratio-scaling approach: I. Loudness production. Percept Psychophys. (2000) 62:1505–11. 10.3758/BF03212151
    1. Zimmer K. Examining the validity of numerical ratios in loudness fractionation. Percept Psychophys. (2005) 67:569–79. 10.3758/BF03193515
    1. Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, Buckingham B. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain. (1983) 17:45–56. 10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4
    1. Kersten P, White PJ, Tennant A. Is the pain visual analogue scale linear and responsive to change? An exploration using Rasch analysis. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e99485. 10.1371/journal.pone.0099485
    1. Harrell FE. General Aspects of Fitting Regression Models. Cham: Springer International Publishing; (2015).
    1. Fitzmaurice G. Applied Longitudinal Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; (2011). 10.1002/9781119513469
    1. Mathieson S, Maher CG, McLachlan AJ, Latimer J, Koes BW, Hancock MJ, et al. . Trial of pregabalin for acute and chronic sciatica. N Engl J Med. (2017) 376:1111–20. 10.1056/NEJMoa1614292
    1. Sainani KL, Borg DN, Caldwell AR, Butson ML, Tenan MS, Vickers AJ, et al. . Call to increase statistical collaboration in sports science, sport and exercise medicine and sports physiotherapy. Br J Sports Med. (2021) 55:118–22. 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102607

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj