Cited by 194Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPain Management and Opioid Use

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT recommended considerations

Open access

Abstract

Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial to making decisions regarding the use of analgesic treatments in clinical practice. In this article, we report on an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, the purpose of which was to recommend approaches that facilitate interpretation of analgesic RCTs. We review issues to consider when drawing conclusions from RCTs, as well as common methods for reporting RCT results and the limitations of each method. These issues include the type of trial, study design, statistical analysis methods, magnitude of the estimated beneficial and harmful effects and associated precision, availability of alternative treatments and their benefit-risk profile, clinical importance of the change from baseline both within and between groups, presentation of the outcome data, and the limitations of the approaches used.

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 · 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001952

Cites

112 of 112 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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Smith, S. M., Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., McDermott, M. P., Eccleston, C., Farrar, J. T., Rowbotham, M. C., Bhagwagar, Z., Burke, L. B., Cowan, P., Ellenberg, S. S., Evans, S. R., Freeman, R. L., Garrison, L. P., Iyengar, S., Jadad, A., Jensen, M. P., Junor, R., Kamp, C., Katz, N. P., Kesslak, J. P., Kopecky, E. A., Lissin, D., Markman, J. D., Mease, P. J., O'Connor, A. B., Patel, K. V., Raja, S. N., Sampaio, C., Schoenfeld, D., Singh, J., Steigerwald, I., Strand, V., Tive, L. A., Tobias, J., Wasan, A. D., & Wilson, H. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Sutter Health (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • American Chronic Pain Association (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Eisai (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Tufts University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Neumentum, Inc, Palo Alto, CA, United States
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Shannon M.
Venue
Pain
Published
2020-06-08
Volume
161
Issue
11
Pages
2446-2461
ISSN
  • 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
  • 1872-6623
OpenAlex
W3033940508
Cited by
194
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 3
FWCI
11.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Amgen
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Biogen
  • Alexion Pharmaceuticals
  • Alnylam Pharmaceuticals
  • Celgene
  • Depomed
  • Washington State University
  • University of Washington
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
  • New York State Stem Cell Science
  • PTC Therapeutics
  • ACADIA Pharmaceuticals
  • aTyr
  • Voyager Therapeutics
  • Multiple Sclerosis Society
  • Astellas Pharma
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U01-FD005936)
  • Administration for Community Living
  • Allergan
  • National Institute on Aging
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  • Daiichi Sankyo Europe
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
chronic pain, randomized controlled trials, analgesic treatment, IMMPACT, risk-benefit assessment, statistical analysis methods, study design limitations, consensus recommendations
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Humans, Pain Measurement, Research Design, Translations, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Chronic Pain

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