Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale
Top Cited Papers
- 1 November 2001
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Pain
- Vol. 94 (2), 149-158
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9
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.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measuresPain, 2000
- The fallacy of using a solitary outcome measure as the standard for satisfactory pain treatment outcomePain Forum, 1999
- Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trialsBMJ, 1998
- The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1997
- Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instrumentsPain, 1996
- Which outcome measures should be used in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials?.Arthritis & Rheumatism, 1995
- The descriptor differential scale of pain intensity: an evaluation of item and scale propertiesPain, 1995
- The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effectBMJ, 1995
- A Diagnostic and Therapeutic N-of-1 Randomized TrialThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 1993
- A model to evaluate mild analgesics in oral surgery outpatientsClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 1976