The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics: use of pain intensity and visual analogue scales
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine whether mean data from categorical pain intensity and visual analogue scales for both pain intensity and relief could be used reliably to derive dichotomous outcome measures for meta-analysis. Individual patient data from randomised controlled trials of single-dose analgesics in acute postoperative pain were used. The methods used were as follows: data from 132 treatments with over 4700 patients were used to calculate mean %maxSPID (categorical pain intensity), %maxVAS-SPID (visual analogue pain intensity) and %maxVAS-TOTPAR (visual analogue pain relief); these were used to derive relationships with the number of patients who achieved at least 50% pain relief (%maxTOTPAR). Good agreement was obtained between the actual number of patients with > 50%maxTOTPAR and the number calculated for all three measures. For SPID, verification included independent data sets. For calculations involving each measure, summing the positive and negative differences between actual and calculated numbers of patients with > 50%maxTOTPAR gave an average difference of less than 0.25 patients per treatment arm. Reports of randomised trials of analgesics frequently describe results of studies in the form of mean derived indices, rather than using discontinuous events, such as number of proportion of patients obtaining at least 50% pain relief. Because mean data inadequately describe information with a non-normal distribution, combining such mean data in systematic reviews may compromise the results. Showing that dichotomous data can reliably be derived from mean SPID, VAS-SPID and VAS-TOTPAR as well as TOTPAR data in previously published acute pain studies makes much more information accessible for meta-analysis.
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
Cited by
The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres?
Collins, S. L., Moore, A. R., & McQuay, H. J. (1997) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00005-5 · Cited by 1,543
Self-citationSingle dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews
Moore, R. A., Derry, S., Aldington, D., & Wiffen, P. J. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008659.pub3 · Cited by 258
Online psychological treatment for pediatric recurrent pain: A randomized evaluation
Hicks, C. L., von Baeyer, C. L., & McGrath, P. J. (2006) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsj065 · Cited by 217
Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults
Moore, R. A., Derry, S., McQuay, H. J., & Wiffen, P. J. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008659.pub2 · Cited by 198
Self-citationNon-prescription (OTC) oral analgesics for acute pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews
Moore, R. A., Wiffen, P. J., Derry, S., Maguire, T., Roy, Y. M., & Tyrrell, L. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010794.pub2 · Cited by 174
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, A., Moore, O., McQuay, H., & Gavaghan, D.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 311-315
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2041356923
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.60
- 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: use of pain intensity and visual analogue scales. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(96)03306-4
- The paper
- Moore, A., Moore, O., McQuay, H., & Gavaghan, D. (1997). Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics: use of pain intensity and visual analogue scales. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(96)03306-4
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.