The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the levels of change on standard pain scales that represent clinically important differences to patients. Data from analgesic studies are often difficult to interpret because the clinical importance of the results is not obvious. Differences between groups, as summarized by a change in mean values over time, can be difficult to apply to clinical care. Baseline scores vary widely and group mean differences could reflect large changes in a few patients, small changes in many patients, or any combination of these outcomes. Determination of the proportion of patients who have a clinically important improvement in their pain would provide a more interpretable result with direct clinical implications. However, determining a clinically important outcome requires information about the degree of change over time that is clinically important. Data from the titration phase of a multiple cross-over randomized clinical trial of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) for the treatment of cancer-related breakthrough pain were re-analyzed to examine the differences in pain scores between treatment episodes that did and did not yield adequate pain relief. The scales evaluated were absolute pain intensity difference (PID, 0-10 scale), percentage pain intensity difference (PID%, 0-100% scale), pain relief (PR, 0 (none), 1 (slight), 2 (moderate), 3 (lots), 4 (complete)), sum of the pain intensity difference (SPID over 60 min), percentage of maximum total pain relief (% Max TOTPAR over 60 min), and global medication performance (0 (poor), 1 (fair), 2 (good), 3 (very good), 4 (excellent)). Adequate relief was defined by the patient's decision not to use another dose of opioid medication as a rescue, in addition to the study medication, to treat each painful episode. One hundred thirty OTFC naive patients contributed data on 1268 episodes of breakthrough pain. The scales that were converted to a percentage change yielded the best accuracy in predicting adequate relief, with balanced sensitivity and specificity. The best cut-off point for both the % Max TOTPAR and the PID% was 33%. The best cut-off points for the absolute scales were absolute pain intensity difference of 2, pain relief of 2 (moderate), and SPID of 2. The global medication performance of 2 (good) had excellent values as well. This study presents data-derived cut-off points for the changes in several pain scales, each reflecting the clinically important improvement for patients treating breakthrough cancer pain episodes with OTFC. Confirmation in other patient populations and different pain syndromes will be needed. The use of consistent clinically important cut-off points as the primary outcome in future pain therapy clinical trials will enhance their validity, comparability, and clinical applicability.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain
Price, D. D., McGrath, P. A., Rafii, A., & Buckingham, B. (1983) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4 · Cited by 3,921
The Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Physician–assigned Visual Analog Pain Scores
Todd, K. H., & Funk, J. P. (1996) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03402.x · Cited by 276
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- 1997, OMERACT III. Outcome measures in arthritis clinical trials. Cairns, Australia, April 16-19, 1997. Proceedings., J Rheumatol, 24, 763
- Cranney, 1999, Responsiveness of endpoints in osteoporosis clinical trials - an update., J Rheumatol, 26, 222
- Farrar, 1998, Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate: randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial for treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients., J Natl Cancer Inst, 90, 611, 10.1093/jnci/90.8.611 · DOI · Paper page
- Goldsmith, 1993, Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee., J Rheumatol, 20, 561
- Grootendorst, 1997, Does it matter whom and how you ask? Inter- and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey., J Clin Epidemiol, 50, 127, 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00314-9 · DOI
- Grossman, 1991, Correlation of patient and caregiver ratings of cancer pain., J Pain Sympt Manage, 6, 53, 10.1016/0885-3924(91)90518-9 · DOI · Paper page
- Hosmer, 1997, A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model., Stat Med, 16, 965, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<965::AID-SIM509>3.0.CO;2-O · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<965::aid-sim509>3.0.co;2-o
- Houde, 1982, Methods for measuring clinical pain in humans., Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl, 74, 25, 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1982.tb01840.x · DOI
- Huskisson, 1976, Graphic representation of pain., Pain, 2, 176
- Juniper, 1994, Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire., J Clin Epidemiol, 47, 81, 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Lasagna, 1960, The clinical measurement of pain., Ann N Y Acad Sci, 86, 28, 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1960.tb42788.x · DOI
- Leijon, 1989, Central post-stroke pain - a controlled trial of amitriptyline and carbamazepine., Pain, 36, 27, 10.1016/0304-3959(89)90108-5 · DOI · Paper page
- LeResche, 1997, Assessment of physical and behavioral outcomes of treatment., Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontics, 83, 82, 10.1016/S1079-2104(97)90096-2 · DOI
- Lichtor, 1999, The relative potency of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate compared with intravenous morphine in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain., Anesth Analg, 89, 732, 10.1213/00000539-199909000-00038 · DOI
- Max, 1992, Effects of desipramine, amitriptyline, and fluoxetine on pain in diabetic neuropathy., N Engl J Med, 326, 1250, 10.1056/NEJM199205073261904 · DOI · Paper page
- McQuay, 1995, Anticonvulsant drugs for management of pain: a systematic review., Br Med J, 311, 1047, 10.1136/bmj.311.7012.1047 · DOI · Paper page
- Miller, 1991, Generalized variance component models for clustered categorical response variables., Biometrics, 47, 33, 10.2307/2532493 · DOI
- Moore, 1996, Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics., Pain, 66, 229, 10.1016/0304-3959(96)03032-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Moore, 1997, Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics: use of pain intensity and visual analogue scales., Pain, 69, 311, 10.1016/S0304-3959(96)03306-4 · DOI · Paper page
- Moore, 1998, Quantitative systematic review of topically applied non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (see comments) (published erratum appears in Br Med J 1998;316(7137):1059)., Br Med J, 316, 333, 10.1136/bmj.316.7128.333 · DOI · Paper page
- Redelmeier, 1996, Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques (see comments)., J Clin Epidemiol, 49, 1215, 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00206-5 · DOI · Paper page
- Savarese, 1988, Rescue factor: a design for evaluating long-acting analgesics., Clin Pharmacol Ther, 43, 376, 10.1038/clpt.1988.46 · doi:10.1038/clpt.1988.46
- Serlin, 1995, When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function., Pain, 61, 277, 10.1016/0304-3959(94)00178-H · DOI · Paper page
- Sheiner, 1994, A new approach to the analysis of analgesic drug trials, illustrated with bromfenac data., Clin Pharmacol Ther, 56, 309, 10.1038/clpt.1994.142 · DOI
- Streisand, 1991, Absorption and bioavailability of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate., Anesthesiology, 75, 223, 10.1097/00000542-199108000-00009 · DOI · Paper page
- Turk, 1993, Neglected topics in chronic pain treatment outcome studies: determination of success., Pain, 53, 3, 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90049-U · DOI · Paper page
- van Walraven, 1999, Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample-size calculation., J Clin Epidemiol, 52, 717, 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00050-5 · DOI
- Ware, 1978, Effects of acquiescent response set on patient satisfaction ratings., Med Care, 16, 327, 10.1097/00005650-197804000-00005 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Farrar, J. T., Young, J. P., LaMoreaux, L., Werth, J. L., & Poole, M. R. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9 · Cited by 5,808
Self-citationDworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Wyrwich, K. W., Beaton, D., Cleeland, C. S., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Kerns, R. D., Ader, D. N., et al. (2008) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 · Cited by 3,471
Self-citationPain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales
Williamson, A., & Hoggart, B. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x · Cited by 3,083
Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods
Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W., & Schuler, T. C. (2007) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008 · Cited by 1,662
Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain
Childs, J. D., Piva, S. R., & Fritz, J. M. (2005) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 · Cited by 1,481
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrar, J. T., Portenoy, R. K., Berlin, J. A., Kinman, J. L., & Strom, B. L.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 287-294
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2064295454
- Cited by
- 1,071
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 20.03
- 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: Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00339-0
- The paper
- Farrar, J. T., Portenoy, R. K., Berlin, J. A., Kinman, J. L., & Strom, B. L. (2000). Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00339-0
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.