Pain
-
Review Comparative Study
A Comparison of the Clinical and Experimental Characteristics of Four Acute Surgical Pain Models: Dental Extraction, Bunionectomy, Joint Replacement and Soft Tissue Surgery.
When a clinical trial of an analgesic produces a negative finding, it is important to consider the influence (if any) of experimental error on the validity of that result. Although efforts to identify and minimize experimental error in chronic pain investigations have begun in earnest, less work has been performed on the optimization of acute pain methodology. Of the acute surgical pain methodology articles that have been published over the last decade, almost all focus on either the dental or bunion model. ⋯ The purposes of this review were (1) to qualitatively describe the clinical and experimental characteristics of the 4 classic surgical models: dental extraction, bunionectomy, joint replacement, and soft tissue surgery; and (2) to quantitatively compare the models by analyzing 3 factors: effect size, enrollment rate, and demographics. We found that the dental extraction and bunionectomy models had higher assay sensitivity than the joint replacement and soft tissue surgery models. It is probable that this finding is secondary to the superior experimental conditions under which the dental and bunion models are executed (utilization of few centers that have the ability to reduce surgical, anesthetic, and postoperative confounders).
-
Performing multiple analyses in clinical trials can inflate the probability of a type I error, or the chance of falsely concluding a significant effect of the treatment. Strategies to minimize type I error probability include prespecification of primary analyses and statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons, when applicable. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of primary analysis reporting and frequency of multiplicity adjustment in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN®). ⋯ Trials in clinical pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials identified a primary analysis more often than trials in experimental pain models and non-industry-sponsored trials, respectively. The results of this systematic review demonstrate deficiencies in the reporting and possibly the execution of primary analyses in published analgesic trials. These deficiencies can be rectified by changes in, or better enforcement of, journal policies pertaining to requirements for the reporting of analyses of clinical trial data.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Using eye movements to investigate selective attention in chronic daily headache.
Previous research has demonstrated that chronic pain is associated with biased processing of pain-related information. Most studies have examined this bias by measuring response latencies. The present study extended previous work by recording eye movement behaviour in individuals with chronic headache and in healthy controls while participants viewed a set of images (i.e., facial expressions) from 4 emotion categories (pain, angry, happy, neutral). ⋯ Both participant groups showed a significantly greater bias to maintain gaze longer on happy images, relative to pain, angry, and neutral images. Results are consistent with a pain-related bias that operates in the orienting of attention on pain-related stimuli, and suggest that chronic pain participants' attentional biases for pain-related information are evident even when other emotional stimuli are present. Pain-related information-processing biases appear to be a robust feature of chronic pain and may have an important role in the maintenance of the disorder.