Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics

Moore, Andrew, McQuay, Henry, Gavaghan, David·1996·Pain

Abstract

Reports of RCTs of analgesics frequently describe results of studies in the form of mean derived indices, rather than using discontinuous events--such as number or proportion of patients with 50% pain relief. Because mean data inadequately describe information with a non-normal distribution, combining mean data in systematic reviews may compromise the results. Showing that dichotomous data can reliably be derived from mean data, at least in acute pain models, indicates that more meaningful overviews or meta-analysis may be possible. This study investigated the relationship between continuous and dichotomous analgesic measures in a set of individual patient data, and then used that relationship to derive dichotomous from continuous information in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of analgesics. Individual patient information from 13 RCTs of parallel-group and crossover design in acute postoperative pain was used to calculate the percentage of the maximum possible pain relief score (%maxTOTPAR) and the proportion of patients with greater than 50% pain relief (> 50%maxTOTPAR) for the different treatments. The relationship between the measures was investigated in 45 actual treatments and 10,000 treatments simulated using the underlying actual distribution; 1283 patients had 45 separate treatments. Mean %maxTOTPAR correlated with the proportion of patients with > 50%maxTOTPAR (r2 = 0.90). The relationship calculated from all the 45 treatments predicted to within three patients the number of patients with more than 50% pain relief in 42 of 45 treatments, and 98.8% of 10,000 simulated treatments. For seven effective treatments, actual numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) to achieve > 50%maxTOTPAR compared with placebo were very similar to those derived from calculated data.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(96)03032-1

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 242

Metadata

Authors
Moore, A., McQuay, H., & Gavaghan, D.
Venue
Pain
Published
1996-08
Volume
66
Issue
2
Pages
229-237
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003491622
Cited by
242
References
2
FWCI
10.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(96)03032-1
The paper
Moore, A., McQuay, H., & Gavaghan, D. (1996). Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(96)03032-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.