Outcomes in Pain Clinical Research: What Really Matters for Patients?
- 24 Downloads
Purpose of Review
The measurement and assessment of pain outcomes is critical to the design, analysis, and interpretation of a pain clinical trial. Results from clinical research impact a number of stakeholders, but it can be argued that patients are the most affected. The purpose of this review is to summarize the most important pain outcomes to patients and discuss methodological considerations in collecting these data in a clinical trial.
We found that there are a number of outcomes that are important to patients. The outcomes that consistently appear in the literature include reductions in pain intensity, changes in medications, and improvements in physical functioning, sleep, and emotional well-being.
Further work is needed to identify what patients truly consider important, minimally important changes, and how best to measure and report these outcomes in pain clinical research.
KeywordsPain Clinical Outcomes Methodology
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
James S. Khan, Rutvij Shah, and Ian Gilron declare they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.Merskey H. The definition of pain. Eur J Psychiatry. 1991;6:153–9.Google Scholar
- 9.Talkington M. Making an IMMPACT on Pain Research. PainResearchForum; 2013. At https://www.painresearchforum.org/news/25105-immpact-turns-10.
- 16.Tugwell PS, Maxwell LJ, Beaton DE, Busse JW, Christensen R, Conaghan PG, et al. Dialogue on developing consensus on measurement and presentation of patient-important outcomes, using pain outcomes as an exemplar, in systematic reviews: a preconference meeting at OMERACT 12. J Rheumatol. 2015;42:1931–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Phillips K, Taylor A, Mease PJ, Simon LS, Conaghan PG, Choy EH, et al. Harmonizing pain outcome measures: results of the Pre-OMERACT Meeting on partnerships for consensus on patient-important pain outcome domains between the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group and OMERACT. J Rheumatol. 2015;42:1943–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Poulin P, et al. Researching what matters to improve chronic pain care in Canada: a priority-setting partnership process to support patient-oriented research. Can J Pain. 2018;2:191–204.Google Scholar
- 24.Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale. SF Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(Suppl 1):S240–52.Google Scholar
- 31.Hays RD, Cella D, Revicki D, Hays RD, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient-reported outcomes PROMIS View project CAHPS (AHRQ); PCAR (NCI), CAM, PROMIS oral health view project recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Artic J Clin Epidemiol. 2008.Google Scholar
- 33.Tashjian RZ, Hung M, Keener JD, Bowen RC, McAllister J, Chen W, et al. Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26:144–8.Google Scholar
- 34.Danoff JR, Goel R, Sutton R, Maltenfort MG, Austin MS. How much pain is significant? Defining the minimal clinically important difference for the visual analog scale for pain after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2018;33:S71–S75.e2.Google Scholar
- 37.Peter M. Drossaers–Bakker, K., Taal, E. & van de Laar, M. Patient-perceived satisfactory improvement (PPSI): interpreting meaningful change in pain from the patient’s perspective. Pain. 2006;121:1–24.Google Scholar
- 51.Hazes JM, Taylor P, Strand V, Purcaru O, Coteur G, Mease P. Physical function improvements and relief from fatigue and pain are associated with increased productivity at work and at home in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with certolizumab pegol. Rheumatology. 2010;49:1900–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 57.Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 58.Martin Bennett R, Bennett R. The Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ): a review of its development, current version, operating characteristics and uses S-154. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23.Google Scholar
- 59.Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8:141–4.Google Scholar
- 66.Fredheim OMS, Borchgrevink PC, Saltnes T, Kaasa S. Validation and comparison of the health-related quality-of-life instruments EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-36 in assessment of patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2007;34(6):657–65.Google Scholar
- 74.Smith MT, Wegener ST. Measures of sleep: the Insomnia Severity Index, Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Diary (PSD), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Arthritis Rheum. 2004;49:S184–96.Google Scholar
- 79.Yatani H, Studts J, Cordova M, Carlson CR, Okeson JP. Comparison of sleep quality and clinical and psychologic characteristics in patients with temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain. 2002;16(3).Google Scholar
- 80.Weiss AR, Johnson NL, Berger NA, Redline S. Validity of activity-based devices to estimate sleep. J Clin Sleep Med. 2010;6.Google Scholar
- 85.Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby J, Sloan PA. Negative emotions, pain, and functioning. Psychol Serv. 2008;5(1):26.Google Scholar
- 102.Guy W. ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology (DHEW Publication No. ADM 76-338). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office; 1976.Google Scholar