Cited by 654Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid Use

Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Dworkin, Robert H., Turk, Dennis C., McDermott, Michael P., Peirce-Sandner, Sarah, Burke, Laurie B., Cowan, Penney, Farrar, John T., Hertz, Sharon +4 more·2009·Pain

Abstract

An essential component of the interpretation of results of randomized clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain involves the determination of their clinical importance or meaningfulness. This involves two distinct processes--interpreting the clinical importance of individual patient improvements and the clinical importance of group differences--which are frequently misunderstood. In this article, we first describe the essential differences between the interpretation of the clinical importance of patient improvements and of group differences. We then discuss the factors to consider when evaluating the clinical importance of group differences, which include the results of responder analyses of the primary outcome measure, the treatment effect size compared to available therapies, analyses of secondary efficacy endpoints, the safety and tolerability of treatment, the rapidity of onset and durability of the treatment benefit, convenience, cost, limitations of existing treatments, and other factors. The clinical importance of individual patient improvements can be determined by assessing what patients themselves consider meaningful improvement using well-described methods. In contrast, the clinical meaningfulness of group differences must be determined by a multi-factorial evaluation of the benefits and risks of the treatment and of other available treatments for the condition in light of the primary goals of therapy. Such determinations must be conducted on a case-by-case ba…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.019

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are no specific recommendations for clinically important group differences for commonly used pain measures.

    “However, there also are no specific recommendations for clinically important group differences for commonly used pain measures.17”
  • The IMMPACT recommendations state that mean differences for efficacious treatments at the group level are generally smaller than what is considered clinically meaningful at the individual level.

    “The IMMPACT recommendations for the interpretation of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials state that mean differences for efficacious treatments at the group level are generally smaller than what is considered clinically meaningful at the individual level.17”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., McDermott, M. P., Peirce-Sandner, S., Burke, L. B., Cowan, P., Farrar, J. T., Hertz, S., Raja, S. N., Rappaport, B. A., Rauschkolb, C., & Sampaio, C.
Affiliations
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • American Chronic Pain Association (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Janssen Research & Development (United States) (US)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
Corresponding author
Dworkin, Robert H.
Venue
Pain
Published
2009-12
Volume
146
Issue
3
Pages
238-244
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966892791
Cited by
654
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 24
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Rochester
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
chronic pain, clinical significance, clinical meaningfulness, group differences, responder analysis, treatment effect size, safety and tolerability, risk-benefit assessment, patient-reported outcomes, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Chronic Disease, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Pain, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Guidelines as Topic, Patient Selection, Pain Management

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