• Neil Singla, Matthew Hunsinger, Phoebe D Chang, Michael P McDermott, Amit K Chowdhry, Paul J Desjardins, Dennis C Turk, and Robert H Dworkin.
• Lotus Clinical Research, Huntington Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Pasadena, California. Electronic address: neil@lotuscr.com.
• J Pain. 2015 Aug 1; 16 (8): 683-91.

UnlabelledThe magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity.PerspectiveThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs.Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…