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
References
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Keene ON. The log transformation is special. Stat Med. (1995) 14:811–9. 10.1002/sim.4780140810
- Senn S. Change from baseline and analysis of covariance revisited. Stat Med. (2006) 25:4334–44. 10.1002/sim.2682
- Senn S, Julious S. Measurement in clinical trials: a neglected issue for statisticians? Stat Med. (2009) 28:3189–209. 10.1002/sim.3603
- 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
- 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
- Vickers AJ. Change/Percent Change From Baseline. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. (2014). 10.1002/9781118445112.stat06963
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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].
- 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
- 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
- Chapman C, Loeser J. Issues in Pain Measurement. New York, NY: Raven Press; (1989).
- Turk D, Melzack R. Handbook of Pain Assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press; (2011).
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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).
- 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
- 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
- Senn S. Individual therapy: new dawn or false dawn? Drug Inform J. (2001) 35:1479–94. 10.1177/009286150103500443
- Senn S. Individual response to treatment: is it a valid assumption? BMJ. (2004) 329:966–8. 10.1136/bmj.329.7472.966
- Senn S. Mastering variation: variance components and personalised medicine. Stat Med. (2016) 35:966–77. 10.1002/sim.6739
- Senn S. Statistical pitfalls of personalized medicine. Nature. (2018) 563:619–21. 10.1038/d41586-018-07535-2
- Cohen J. The cost of dichotomization. Appl Psychol Meas. (1983) 7:249–53. 10.1177/014662168300700301
- Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. (2006) 332:1080. 10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1080
- 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
- Stevens SS. Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects. New York, NY: Routledge; (2017). 10.4324/9781315127675
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Zimmer K. Examining the validity of numerical ratios in loudness fractionation. Percept Psychophys. (2005) 67:569–79. 10.3758/BF03193515
- 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
- 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
- Harrell FE. General Aspects of Fitting Regression Models. Cham: Springer International Publishing; (2015).
- Fitzmaurice G. Applied Longitudinal Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; (2011). 10.1002/9781119513469
- 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
- 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