Generalizing from a controlled trial: the effects of patient preference versus randomization on the outcome of inpatient versus outpatient chronic pain management

被引:40
作者
Williams, ACC [1 ]
Nicholas, MK
Richardson, PH
Pither, CE
Fernandes, J
机构
[1] Univ London, Kings Guys & St Thomas Med Sch, Div Psychiat & Psychol, London, England
[2] Univ London, Kings Guys & St Thomas Dent Sch, Div Psychiat & Psychol, London, England
[3] St Thomas Hosp, Guys & St Thomas Hosp NHS Trust, INPUT Pain Management Unit, London SE1 7EH, England
[4] Univ Sydney, Royal N Shore Hosp, Pain Management & Res Ctr, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia
[5] Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust, London, England
[6] Univ Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, Essex, England
关键词
chronic pain; randomized controlled trial; pain management;
D O I
10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00074-3
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Patients accepting randomization in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) may not be representative of the clinical population from which they are drawn, calling into question the generalizability of study findings. Comparison of randomized and non-randomized inpatient and outpatient samples at baseline and in treatment outcomes up to one year was made to determine whether the findings of the RCT generalized to non-randomized patients in the same treatment program. One hundred and twenty one patients with intractable pain, randomized between inpatient, outpatient and waiting list control, were compared with 128 who elected for either inpatient or outpatient treatment. Treatment was a group-based multidisciplinary cognitive-behavioral treatment program aimed at enabling patients to return to more normal function despite persistent pain, delivered to mixed groups of randomized and elective patients, and outcome was measured by physical performance, pain impact on function, mood, and drug use. Agreement to randomization was a function of travelling distance from home to hospital. Nonrandomized patients largely resembled their randomized counterparts before and after treatment. In order to indicate the clinical significance of results, analyses were conducted using numbers needed to treat (NNTs). NNTs estimate the number of patients required in the treatment condition for one of them to achieve the specified outcome who would not have achieved it in the comparison condition. Across a range of measures at one month follow-up, comparison of inpatients with outpatients gave NNTs between 2.3 and 7.5, and comparison of inpatients with waiting list controls gave NNTs between 2.3 and 3.6, At one year inpatients showed greater likelihood than outpatients of maintaining these treatment gains. (C) 1999 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:57 / 65
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Inpatient-based intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment for highly impaired children with severe chronic pain: Randomized controlled trial of efficacy and economic effects
    Hechler, Tanja
    Ruhe, Ann-Kristin
    Schmidt, Pia
    Hirsch, Jessica
    Wager, Julia
    Dobe, Michael
    Krummenauer, Frank
    Zernikow, Boris
    PAIN, 2014, 155 (01) : 118 - 128
  • [32] German Randomized Acupuncture Trial for chronic shoulder pain (GRASP) - A pragmatic, controlled, patient-blinded, multi-centre trial in an outpatient care environment
    Molsberger, Albrecht F.
    Schneider, Thomas
    Gotthardt, Hermann
    Drabik, Attyla
    PAIN, 2010, 151 (01) : 146 - 154
  • [33] Comparison of patient-controlled analgesia versus continuous infusion of tramadol in post-cesarean section pain management
    Demirel, Ismail
    Ozer, Ayse Belin
    Atilgan, Remzi
    Kavak, Burcin Salih
    Unlu, Serap
    Bayar, Mustafa Kemal
    Sapmaz, Ekrem
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2014, 40 (02) : 392 - 398
  • [34] A study protocol for a single-blind, randomized controlled trial of adjunctive transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for chronic pain among patients receiving specialized, inpatient multimodal pain management
    Jimenez-Torres, G. Janice
    Weinstein, Benjamin L.
    Walker, Cory R.
    Fowler, J. Christopher
    Ashford, Philippa
    Borckardt, Jeffrey J.
    Madan, Alok
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2017, 54 : 36 - 47
  • [35] Manual therapy versus therapeutic exercise in non-specific chronic neck pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Bernal-Utrera, Carlos
    Jose Gonzalez-Gerez, Juan
    Saavedra-Hernandez, Manuel
    Angel Lerida-Ortega, Miguel
    Rodriguez-Blanco, Cleofas
    TRIALS, 2019, 20 (01)
  • [36] Biopsychosocial primary care versus physiotherapy as usual in chronic low back pain: results of a pilot-randomised controlled trial
    van Erp, Reni M. A.
    Huijnen, Ivan P. J.
    Ambergen, Antonius W.
    Verbunt, Jeanine A.
    Smeets, Rob J. E. M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY, 2021, 23 (01) : 3 - 10
  • [37] Patient characteristics associated with opioid versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug management of chronic low back pain
    Breckenridge, J
    Clark, JD
    JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2003, 4 (06) : 344 - 350
  • [38] Sahaj Samadhi Meditation versus a Health Enhancement Program for depression in chronic pain: protocol for a randomized controlled trial and implementation evaluation
    Sud, Abhimanyu
    Nelson, Michelle L. A.
    Cheng, Darren K.
    Armas, Alana
    Foat, Kirk
    Greiver, Michelle
    Hosseiny, Fardous
    Katz, Joel
    Moineddin, Rahim
    Mulsant, Benoit H.
    Newman, Ronnie, I
    Rivlin, Leon
    Vasudev, Akshya
    Upshur, Ross
    TRIALS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [39] Remifentanil versus fentanyl during cardiac surgery on the incidence of chronic thoracic pain (REFLECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    de Hoogd, Sjoerd
    Ahlers, Sabine J. G. M.
    van Dongen, Eric P. A.
    Tibboel, Dick
    Dahan, Albert
    Knibbe, Catherijne A. J.
    TRIALS, 2014, 15
  • [40] Impact of a brief intervention on patient communication and barriers to pain management: Results from a randomized controlled trial
    Smith, Meredith Y.
    DuHamel, Katherine N.
    Egert, Jennifer
    Winkel, Gary
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2010, 81 (01) : 79 - 86