Cited by 38Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Assay sensitivity and study features in neuropathic pain trials: An ACTTION meta-analysis

Open access
Dworkin, Robert H., Turk, Dennis C., Peirce-Sandner, Sarah, He, Hua, McDermott, Michael P., Farrar, John T., Katz, Nathaniel P., Lin, Allison H. +2 more·2013·Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify patient, study, and site factors associated with assay sensitivity in placebo-controlled neuropathic pain trials. METHODS: We examined the associations between study characteristics and standardized effect size (SES) in a database of 200 publicly available randomized clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments for neuropathic pain. RESULTS: There was considerable heterogeneity in the SESs among the examined trials. Univariate meta-regression analyses indicated that larger SESs were significantly associated with trials that had 1) greater minimum baseline pain inclusion criteria, 2) greater mean subject age, 3) a larger percentage of Caucasian subjects, and 4) a smaller total number of subjects. In a multiple meta-regression analysis, the associations between SES and minimum baseline pain inclusion criterion and age remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses have examined potentially modifiable correlates of study SES and shown that a minimum pain inclusion criterion of 40 or above on a 0 to 100 scale is associated with a larger SES. These data provide a foundation for investigating strategies to improve assay sensitivity and thereby decrease the likelihood of falsely negative outcomes in clinical trials of efficacious treatments for neuropathic pain.

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 · 10.1212/wnl.0b013e318297ee69

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Dubinsky RM, Kabbani H, El-Chami Z, Boutwell C, Ali H. Practice parameter: treatment of postherpetic neu- ralgia: an evidence-based report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2004;63:959-965.
  2. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for System- atic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Peirce-Sandner, S., He, H., McDermott, M. P., Farrar, J. T., Katz, N. P., Lin, A. H., Rappaport, B. A., & Rowbotham, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Tufts University (US)
  • From the Departments of Anesthesiology (R.H.D., S.P.-S.), Biostatistics and Computational Biology (H.H., M.P.M.), and Neurology (R.H.D., M.P.M), University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine (D.C.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (J.T.F.), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Analgesic Solutions, Natick, and Tufts University, Boston (N.P.K.), MA; Division of...
Venue
Neurology
Published
2013-07-02
Volume
81
Issue
1
Pages
67-75
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2013578490
Cited by
38
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U01 FD004187)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (HHSF 223201000078C)
  • National Institute on Aging (U01AG030644)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA032776, R01DA026887)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA158243)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR064153, R01AR059102)
  • National Center for Research Resources (TL1RR024133)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
neuropathic pain, assay sensitivity, standardized effect size, trial characteristics, racial composition, sample size, pharmacotherapy
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Neuralgia, Research Design, Sensitivity and Specificity, Treatment Outcome

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