Reporting of primary analyses and multiplicity adjustment in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

The Short Form of the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale in Post-operative Analgesia Studies in Dogs: A Scoping Review

The measurement and treatment of acute pain in animals is essential from a welfare perspective. Valid pain-related outcome measures are also crucial for ensuring reliable and translatable findings in veterinary clinical trials. The short form of the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-SF) is a multi-item behavioral pain assessment tool, developed and validated using a psychometric approach, to measure acute pain in the dog. Here we conduct a scoping review to identify prospective research studies that have used the CMPS-SF. We aim to describe the contexts in which it has been used, verify the correct use of the scale, and examine whether these studies are well-designed and adequately powered. We identify 114 eligible studies, indicating widespread use of the scale. We also document a limited number of modifications to the scale and intervention level, which would alter its validity. A variety of methods, with no consensus, were used to analyse data derived from the scale. However, we also find many deficiencies in reporting of experimental design in terms of the observers used, the underlying hypothesis of the research, the statement of primary outcome, and the use of a priori sample size calculations. These deficiencies may predispose to both type I and type II statistical errors in the small animal pain literature. We recommend more robust use of the scale and derived data to ensure success of future studies using the tool ensuring reliable and translatable outcomes.

Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations

ABSTRACT

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an interventional nonpharmacologic treatment used for chronic pain and other indications. Methods for evaluating the safety and efficacy of SCS have evolved from uncontrolled and retrospective studies to prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although randomization overcomes certain types of bias, additional challenges to the validity of RCTs of SCS include blinding, choice of control groups, nonspecific effects of treatment variables (eg, paresthesia, device programming and recharging, psychological support, and rehabilitative techniques), and safety considerations. To address these challenges, 3 professional societies (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society) convened a meeting to develop consensus recommendations on the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of RCTs of SCS for chronic pain. This article summarizes the results of this meeting. Highlights of our recommendations include disclosing all funding source and potential conflicts; incorporating mechanistic objectives when possible; avoiding noninferiority designs without internal demonstration of assay sensitivity; achieving and documenting double-blinding whenever possible; documenting investigator and site experience; keeping all information provided to patients balanced with respect to expectation of benefit; disclosing all information provided to patients, including verbal scripts; using placebo/sham controls when possible; capturing a complete set of outcome assessments; accounting for ancillary pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments in a clear manner; providing a complete description of intended and actual programming interactions; making a prospective ascertainment of SCS-specific safety outcomes; training patients and researchers on appropriate expectations, outcome assessments, and other key aspects of study performance; and providing transparent and complete reporting of results according to applicable reporting guidelines.

Essential statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments

This article presents an overview of fundamental statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments. Statistical considerations relevant to phase 2 proof of concept and phase 3 confirmatory randomized trials investigating efficacy and safety are discussed, including (1) research design; (2) endpoints and analyses; (3) sample size determination and statistical power; (4) missing data and trial estimands; (5) data monitoring and interim analyses; and (6) interpretation of results. Although clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments are emphasized, the key issues raised by these trials are also directly applicable to clinical trials of other types of treatments, including biologics, devices, nonpharmacologic therapies (eg, physical therapy and cognitive-behavior therapy), and complementary and integrative health interventions.

Systematic Review of Research Methods and Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain

This systematic review assessed design characteristics and reporting quality of published randomized clinical trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of pain in adults and adolescents. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018090412). Relevant articles were identified by searching the following databases through December 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, WikiStim, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forty-six studies were included. Eighty-seven percent of articles identified a pain-related primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included physical functioning, health-related quality of life, and reductions in opioid use. Nineteen of the 46 studies prespecified adverse events as an outcome, with 4 assessing them as a primary outcome. Eleven studies stated that they blinded participants. Of these, only 5 were assessed as being adequately blinded. The number of participants enrolled was generally low (median 38) and study durations were short (median 12 weeks), particularly in studies of angina. Fifteen studies employed an intention-to-treat analysis, of which only seven specified a method to accommodate missing data. Review of these studies identified deficiencies in both reporting and methodology. The review's findings suggest areas for improving the design of future studies and increasing transparency of reporting. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a systematic review of research methods and reporting quality of randomized clinical trials of SCS for the treatment of various pain complaints. The review identifies deficiencies in both methodology and reporting, which may inform the design of future studies and improve reporting standards.

Prevalence of Multiplicity and Appropriate Adjustments Among Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials Published in Major Medical Journals

Importance

Multiple analyses in a clinical trial can increase the probability of inaccurately concluding that there is a statistically significant treatment effect. However, to date, it is unknown how many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) perform adjustments for multiple comparisons, the lack of which could lead to erroneous findings.

Objectives

To assess the prevalence of multiplicity and whether appropriate multiplicity adjustments were performed among cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 medical journals with a high impact factor.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, cardiovascular RCTs were selected from all over the world, characterized as North America, Western Europe, multiregional, and rest of the world. Data were collected from past issues of 3 cardiovascular journals (Circulation, European Heart Journal, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology) and 3 general medicine journals (JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine) with high impact factors published between August 1, 2015, and July 31, 2018. Supplements and trial protocols of each of the included RCTs were also searched for multiplicity. Data were analyzed December 20 to 27, 2018.

Exposures

Data from the selected RCTs were extracted and verified independently by 2 researchers using a structured data instrument. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer helped to achieve consensus. An RCT was considered to have multiple treatment groups if it had more than 2 arms; multiple outcomes were defined as having more than 1 primary outcome, and multiple analyses were defined as analysis of the same outcome variable in multiple ways. Multiplicity was examined only for the analysis of the primary end point.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest were percentages of primary analyses that performed multiplicity adjustment of primary end points.

Results

Of 511 cardiovascular RCTs included in this analysis, 300 (58.7%) had some form of multiplicity; of these 300, only 85 (28.3%) adjusted for multiplicity. Intervention type and funding source had no statistically significant association with the reporting of multiplicity risk adjustment. Trials that assessed mortality vs nonmortality outcomes were more likely to contain a multiplicity risk in their primary analysis (66.3% [177 of 267] vs 50.4% [123 of 244]; P < .001), and larger trials vs smaller trials were less likely to make any adjustments for multiplicity (35.6% [52 of 146] vs 21.4% [33 of 154]; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this study suggest that cardiovascular RCTs published in medical journals with high impact factors demonstrate infrequent adjustments to correct for multiple comparisons in the primary end point. These parameters may be improved by more standardized reporting.

Ovarian cancer screening in the general population

Background Ovarian carcinoma is a poor prognosis cancer mainly due to its late diagnosis. Its incidence is relatively low but mortality is high. The symptomatology is only slightly specific, which complicates diagnostic management. It would therefore be interesting to be able to establish a diagnosis as early as possible in order to improve the prognosis of patients suffering from ovarian cancer. Materials and methods Currently, the combination of an ultrasound examination with a cancer antigen (CA)-125 assay is the most effective diagnostic technique, but not already admitted as a screening method. Therefore, we realized an exhaustive analysis of the most important studies in the last 15 years, in order to find new approaches in ovarian cancer screening. Results The age for initiating screening and its frequency are issues that are not fully resolved. The false positives and morbidity that result from screening are currently notable limitations. Conclusions The latest data do not support effective screening in the general population.

Special considerations in conducting clinical trials of chronic pain management interventions in children and adolescents and their families

INTRODUCTION

Disabling chronic pain is a common experience for children and adolescents. However, the evidence base for chronic pain interventions for youth is extremely limited, which has hindered the development of evidence-based practice guidelines for most pediatric chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To review and provide recommendations on clinical trial design and evaluation in children and adolescents with chronic pain.

METHODS

In this article, we summarize key issues and provide recommendations for addressing them in clinical trials of chronic pain interventions in children and adolescents and their families.

RESULTS

To stimulate high-quality trials of pediatric chronic pain management interventions, attention to key issues including sample characterization, trial design and treatment administration, outcome measurement, and the ethics of intervening with children and adolescents, as opposed to adults with chronic pain, is needed.

CONCLUSION

Future research to develop interventions to reduce or prevent childhood chronic pain is an important priority area, and requires special considerations in implementation and evaluation in clinical trials.

Checklist for the preparation and review of pain clinical trial publications: a pain-specific supplement to CONSORT

INTRODUCTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard when assessing the efficacy of interventions because randomization of treatment assignment minimizes bias in treatment effect estimates. However, if RCTs are not performed with methodological rigor, many opportunities for bias in treatment effect estimates remain. Clear and transparent reporting of RCTs is essential to allow the reader to consider the opportunities for bias when critically evaluating the results. To promote such transparent reporting, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group has published a series of recommendations starting in 1996. However, a decade after the publication of the first CONSORT guidelines, systematic reviews of clinical trials in the pain field identified a number of common deficiencies in reporting (e.g., failure to identify primary outcome measures and analyses, indicate clearly the numbers of participants who completed the trial and were included in the analyses, or report harms adequately).

METHODS

Qualitative review of a diverse set of published recommendations and systematic reviews that addressed the reporting of clinical trials, including those related to all therapeutic indications (e.g., CONSORT) and those specific to pain clinical trials.

RESULTS

A checklist designed to supplement the content covered in the CONSORT checklist with added details relating to challenges specific to pain trials or found to be poorly reported in recent pain trials was developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors and reviewers of analgesic RCTs should consult the CONSORT guidelines and this checklist to ensure that the issues most pertinent to pain RCTs are reported with transparency.

Design and Reporting Characteristics of Clinical Trials of Select Chronic and Recurrent Pediatric Pain Conditions: An Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks Systematic Review

Fewer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are conducted for chronic or recurrent pain in pediatric populations compared with adult populations; thus, data to support treatment efficacy in children are limited. This article evaluates the design features and reporting practices of RCTs for chronic and recurrent pain that are likely unique to, or particularly important in, a pediatric population to promote improvements in the evidence base for pediatric pain treatments. Areas covered include outcome measure selection and reporting and reporting of adverse events and challenges to recruitment and retention. A search of PubMed and EMBASE identified primary publications describing RCTs of treatments for select chronic and recurrent pain conditions in children or adolescents published between 2000 and 2017. Only 49% of articles identified a primary outcome measure. The primary outcome measure assessed pain intensity in 38% of the trials, specifically measure by verbal rating scale (13%), faces pain scale (11%), visual analogue scale (9%), or numeric rating scale (5%). All of the CONSORT harms reporting recommendations were fulfilled by <50% of the articles. Discussions of recruitment challenges occurred in 64% of articles that enrolled <90% of their target sample. However, discussions regarding retention challenges only occurred in 14% of trials in which withdrawal rates were >10%. The goal of this article is to promote comprehensive reporting of pediatric pain RCTs to improve the design of future trials, facilitate conduction of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and better inform clinical practice. PERSPECTIVE: This review of chronic and recurrent pediatric pain trials demonstrates inadequacies in the reporting quality of key features specifically important to pediatric populations. It provides recommendations that address these shortcomings to promote continued efforts toward improving the quality of the design and publication of future pediatric clinical pain trials.

An introduction to multiplicity issues in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how

In clinical trials it is not uncommon to face a multiple testing problem which can have an impact on both type I and type II error rates, leading to inappropriate interpretation of trial results. Multiplicity issues may need to be considered at the design, analysis and interpretation stages of a trial. The proportion of trial reports not adequately correcting for multiple testing remains substantial. The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to multiple testing issues in clinical trials, and to reduce confusion around the need for multiplicity adjustments. We use a tutorial, question-and-answer approach to address the key issues of why, when and how to consider multiplicity adjustments in trials. We summarize the relevant circumstances under which multiplicity adjustments ought to be considered, as well as options for carrying out multiplicity adjustments in terms of trial design factors including Population, Intervention/Comparison, Outcome, Time frame and Analysis (PICOTA). Results are presented in an easy-to-use table and flow diagrams. Confusion about multiplicity issues can be reduced or avoided by considering the potential impact of multiplicity on type I and II errors and, if necessary pre-specifying statistical approaches to either avoid or adjust for multiplicity in the trial protocol or analysis plan.

Research Design Characteristics of Published Pharmacologic Randomized Clinical Trials for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Chronic Pelvic Pain Conditions: An ACTTION Systematic Review

Chronic pain conditions occurring in the lower abdomen and pelvis are common, often challenging to manage, and can negatively affect health-related quality of life. Methodological challenges in designing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for these conditions likely contributes to the limited number of available treatments. The goal of this systematic review of RCTs of pharmacologic treatments for irritable bowel syndrome and 3 common chronic pelvic pain conditions are to: 1) summarize the primary end points and entry criteria, and 2) evaluate the clarity of reporting of important methodological details. In total, 127 RCTs were included in the analysis. The most common inclusion criteria were a minimum pain duration (81%), fulfilling an established diagnostic criteria (61%), and reporting a minimum pain intensity (42%). Primary end points were identified for only 57% of trials. These end points, summarized in this article, were highly variable. The results of this systematic review can be used to inform future research to optimize the entry criteria and outcome measures for pain conditions occurring in the lower abdomen and pelvis, to increase transparency in reporting to allow for proper interpretation of RCT results for clinical and policy applications, and to facilitate the aggregation of data in meta-analyses.

PERSPECTIVE

This article summarizes entry criteria and outcome measures and the clarity of reporting of these important design features in RCTs of irritable bowel syndrome and 3 common chronic pelvic pain conditions. These results can be used to improve design of future trials of these largely unaddressed pain conditions.

A Systematic Review of Labor Pain Used as an Outcome Criterion in Clinical Research

OBJECTIVES

Research on labor pain currently uses standard scores such as numerical scales as clinical outcomes, but no clear guidelines for such an assessment have appeared since a review published in 1998. We aimed to describe and estimate the quality of the methods used to assess and analyze such outcomes in a systematic review of 215 comparative studies published since then in 27 influential journals.

METHODS

In addition to a complete description, we created for each study a composite "analysis quality score" (AQS) on the basis of the methods of both measurement of pain/analgesia, and statistical analysis. AQS was tested against various factors, including a "design quality score" (DQS), created to estimate methodological quality (regardless of the analysis of pain intensity).

RESULTS

Both the AQS and its "measurement" component increased with the year of publication, as well as the DQS. The impact factor correlated only with the statistical component of the AQS, and with the DQS. However, the mean AQS and DQS were, respectively, at 43% and 75% of their maximal possible value, and these 2 scores were not correlated. The intensity of labor pain (or pain relief) was the primary outcome in 19% of the studies. Although most of the studies actually used numerical scales, the methods of analysis were heterogeneous. When a cutoff point was determined to define analgesia, this was most often 30% of the maximal value.

DISCUSSION

This review points out the need for a better standardization of the methods in this field of research.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy clinical trials: Review and recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To assess the design characteristics and reporting quality of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for treatments of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) initiated before or during chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this systematic review of RCTs of preventive or symptomatic pharmacologic treatments for CIPN initiated before or during chemotherapy treatment, articles were identified by updating the PubMed search utilized in the CIPN treatment guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2014.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight articles were identified. The majority included only patients receiving platinum therapies (61%) and used a placebo control (79%). Common exclusion criteria were preexisting neuropathy (84%), diabetes (55%), and receiving treatments that could potentially improve neuropathy symptoms (45%). Ninety-five percent of studies initiated the experimental treatment before CIPN symptoms occurred. Although 58% of articles identified a primary outcome measure (POM), only 32% specified a primary analysis. Approximately half (54%) of the POMs were patient-reported outcome measures of symptoms and functional impairment. Other POMs included composite measures of symptoms and clinician-rated signs (23%) and vibration tests (14%). Only 32% of articles indicated how data from participants who prematurely discontinued chemotherapy were analyzed, and 21% and 29% reported the number of participants who discontinued chemotherapy due to neuropathy or other/unspecified reasons, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These data identify reporting practices that could be improved in order to enhance readers' ability to critically evaluate RCTs of CIPN treatments and use the findings to inform the design of future studies and clinical practice. Reporting recommendations are provided.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 1 Efficacy: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds with the objective of developing recommendations for procedural sedation research. Four core outcome domains were recommended for consideration in sedation clinical trials: (1) safety, (2) efficacy, (3) patient-centered and/or family-centered outcomes, and (4) efficiency. This meeting identified core outcome measures within the efficacy and patient-centered and/or family-centered domains. Safety will be addressed in a subsequent meeting, and efficiency will not be addressed at this time. These measures encompass depth and levels of sedation, proceduralist and patient satisfaction, patient recall, and degree of pain experienced. Consistent use of the recommended outcome measures will facilitate the comprehensive reporting across sedation trials, along with meaningful comparisons among studies and interventions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Reporting of Design Features and Analysis Details in Randomized Clinical Trials of Procedural Treatments for Cancer Pain: An ACTTION Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the reporting of randomized clinical trials investigating procedural treatments (eg, nerve blocks, targeted drug delivery) for cancer pain, with a focus on aspects that are particularly challenging in these trials.

METHODS

This article presents results from a systematic review of reporting of randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions for cancer pain. Articles were identified by searching PubMed from 1966 to June 2014. Data related to quality of reporting are presented for early (1985-2004) and late periods (2005-2014).

RESULTS

A total of 35 published trials were included. Approximately two-thirds of the articles clearly indicated the level of blinding. Only 26% reported a primary outcome measure. Less than half explicitly reported the number of patients who completed the trial, and only 1 reported a method that was used to accommodate missing data. Almost one-third of articles included a responder analysis, all of which specified the definition of a responder.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of highlighting these deficiencies in reporting is to promote transparent reporting of details affecting the completion and interpretation of procedural cancer pain trials so that their quality can be more easily evaluated.

Reporting of adverse events and statistical details of efficacy estimates in randomized clinical trials of pain in temporomandibular disorders: Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks systematic review

BACKGROUND

Statistical methods and adverse events (that is, harms) data affect the accuracy of conclusions about the risk-to-benefit ratio of treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). The authors reviewed the quality of reporting in TMD clinical trials to highlight practices that are in need of improvement.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors included articles published between 1969 and May 31, 2013, in which the investigators reported randomized clinical trials of TMD treatments with pain as a principal outcome variable. Investigators in trials of nonpharmacologic and noninvasive treatments were required to at least mask the participants and assessors; all others were required to be double masked.

RESULTS

Ninety articles qualified for this review: 39 published between 1971 and 2005 (older articles) and 51 published between 2006 and 2013 (newer articles). Specification of primary outcome analyses, methods to accommodate missing data, and adverse event collection methods and rates were generally poor. In some cases, there was apparent improvement from the older to the newer cohort; however, reporting of these methodological details remained inadequate even in the newer articles.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This review is designed to alert authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of TMD clinical trials to these issues and improve reporting quality in the future.

Deficiencies in reporting of statistical methodology in recent randomized trials of nonpharmacologic pain treatments: ACTTION systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of statistical methods in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), including identification of primary analyses, missing data accommodation, and multiplicity adjustment, in studies of nonpharmacologic, noninterventional pain treatments (e.g., physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, acupuncture, and massage).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of 101 articles reporting RCTs of pain treatments that were published between January 2006 and June 2013 in the European Journal of Pain, the Journal of Pain, and Pain.

SETTING

Systematic review.

RESULTS

Sixty-two percent of studies identified a primary outcome variable, 46% identified a primary analysis, and of those with multiple primary analyses, only 21% adjusted for multiplicity. Slightly over half (55%) of studies reported using at least one method to accommodate missing data. Only four studies reported prespecifying at least one of these four study methods.

CONCLUSION

This review identified deficiencies in the reporting of primary analyses and methods to adjust for multiplicity and accommodate missing data in articles disseminating results of nonpharmacologic, noninterventional trials. Investigators should be encouraged to indicate whether their analyses were prespecified and to clearly and completely report statistical methods in clinical trial publications to maximize the interpretability of trial results.

Reporting of sample size calculations in analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review

Sample size calculations determine the number of participants required to have sufficiently high power to detect a given treatment effect. In this review, we examined the reporting quality of sample size calculations in 172 publications of double-blind randomized controlled trials of noninvasive pharmacologic or interventional (ie, invasive) pain treatments published in European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain from January 2006 through June 2013. Sixty-five percent of publications reported a sample size calculation but only 38% provided all elements required to replicate the calculated sample size. In publications reporting at least 1 element, 54% provided a justification for the treatment effect used to calculate sample size, and 24% of studies with continuous outcome variables justified the variability estimate. Publications of clinical pain condition trials reported a sample size calculation more frequently than experimental pain model trials (77% vs 33%, P < .001) but did not differ in the frequency of reporting all required elements. No significant differences in reporting of any or all elements were detected between publications of trials with industry and nonindustry sponsorship. Twenty-eight percent included a discrepancy between the reported number of planned and randomized participants. This study suggests that sample size calculation reporting in analgesic trial publications is usually incomplete. Investigators should provide detailed accounts of sample size calculations in publications of clinical trials of pain treatments, which is necessary for reporting transparency and communication of pre-trial design decisions.

PERSPECTIVE

In this systematic review of analgesic clinical trials, sample size calculations and the required elements (eg, treatment effect to be detected; power level) were incompletely reported. A lack of transparency regarding sample size calculations may raise questions about the appropriateness of the calculated sample size.

Data interpretation in analgesic clinical trials with statistically nonsignificant primary analyses: an ACTTION systematic review

Peer-reviewed publications of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the primary means of disseminating research findings. "Spin" in RCT publications is misrepresentation of statistically nonsignificant research findings to suggest treatment benefit. Spin can influence the way readers interpret clinical trials and use the information to make decisions about treatments and medical policies. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency with which 4 types of spin were used in publications of analgesic RCTs with nonsignificant primary analyses in 6 major pain journals. In the 76 articles included in our sample, 28% of the abstracts and 29% of the main texts emphasized secondary analyses with P values <.05; 22% of abstracts and 29% of texts emphasized treatment benefit based on nonsignificant primary results; 14% of abstracts and 18% of texts emphasized within-group improvements over time, rather than primary between-group comparisons; and 13% of abstracts and 10% of texts interpreted a nonsignificant difference between groups in a superiority study as comparable effectiveness. When considering the article conclusion sections, 21% did not mention the nonsignificant primary result, 22% were presented with no uncertainty or qualification, 30% did not acknowledge that future research was required, and 8% recommended the intervention for clinical use.

PERSPECTIVE

This article identifies relatively frequent "spin" in analgesic RCTs. These findings highlight a need for authors, reviewers, and editors to be more cognizant of how analgesic RCT results are presented and attempt to minimize spin in future clinical trial publications.

Reporting of intention-to-treat analyses in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

The intention-to-treat (ITT) principle states that all subjects in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) should be analyzed in the group to which they were assigned, regardless of compliance with assigned treatment. Analyses performed according to the ITT principle preserve the benefits of randomization and are recommended by regulators and statisticians for analyses of RCTs. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency with which publications of analgesic RCTs in 3 major pain journals report an ITT analysis and the percentage of the author-declared ITT analyses that include all randomized subjects and thereby fulfill the most common interpretation of the ITT principle. RCTs investigating noninvasive, pharmacologic and interventional (eg, nerve blocks, implantable pumps, spinal cord stimulators, surgery) treatments for pain, published between January 2006 and June 2013 (n=173), were included. None of the trials using experimental pain models reported an ITT analysis; 47% of trials investigating clinical pain conditions reported an ITT analysis, and 5% reported a modified ITT analysis. Of the analyses reported as ITT, 67% reported reasons for excluding subjects from the analysis, and 18% of those listing reasons for exclusion did not do so in the Methods section. Such mislabeling can make it difficult to identify traditional ITT analyses for inclusion in meta-analyses. We hope that deficiencies in reporting identified in this study will encourage authors, reviewers, and editors to promote more consistent use of the term "intention to treat" for more accurate reporting of RCT-based evidence for pain treatments.

Reporting of missing data and methods used to accommodate them in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

Missing data in clinical trials can bias estimates of treatment effects. Statisticians and government agencies recommend making every effort to minimize missing data. Although statistical methods are available to accommodate missing data, their validity depends on often untestable assumptions about why the data are missing. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency with which randomized clinical trials published in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain) reported strategies to prevent missing data, the number of participants who completed the study (ie, completers), and statistical methods to accommodate missing data. A total of 161 randomized clinical trials investigating treatments for pain, published between 2006 and 2012, were included. Approximately two-thirds of the trials reported at least 1 method that could potentially minimize missing data, the most common being allowance of concomitant medications. Only 61% of the articles explicitly reported the number of patients who were randomized and completed the trial. Although only 14 articles reported that all randomized participants completed the study, fewer than 50% of the articles reported a statistical method to accommodate missing data. Last observation carried forward imputation was used most commonly (42%). Thirteen articles reported more than 1 method to accommodate missing data; however, the majority of methods, including last observation carried forward, were not methods currently recommended by statisticians. Authors, reviewers, and editors should prioritize proper reporting of missing data and appropriate use of methods to accommodate them so as to improve the deficiencies identified in this systematic review.