Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36333665›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Rescaling pain intensity measures for meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain appears justified: an empirical examination from randomised trials.

Michael A Wewege, Matthew D Jones, Sam A Williams, Steven J Kamper, James H McAuley

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael A WewegeSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, High St, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia. m.wewege@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3283-2149
Matthew D JonesSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, High St, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5534-755X
Sam A WilliamsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, High St, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3322-5997
Steven J KamperSchool of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Missenden Rd, PO Box M179, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3012-5499
James H McAuleySchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, High St, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0550-828X
UNSW Sydney · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMeta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain often rescale measures of pain intensity to use mean difference (MD) instead of standardised mean difference for pooled estimates. Although this improves clinical interpretability, it is not clear whether this method is justified. Our study evaluated the justification for this method.

methodsWe identified randomised clinical trials of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain that used two scales with different ranges to measure the same construct of pain intensity. We transformed all data to a 0-100 scale, then compared between-group estimates across pairs of scales with different ranges.

resultsTwelve trials were included. Overall, differences in means between pain intensity measures that were rescaled to a common 0-100 scale appeared to be small and randomly distributed. For one study that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-10 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the difference in MD between the scales was 0.8 points out of 100. For three studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-10 scale and 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.2 points out of 100 (range 5.5 points lower to 2.7 points higher). For two studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points out of 100 (range 6.2 points lower to 12.1 points higher). Finally, for six studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-4 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points (range 5.4 points lower to 8.3 points higher).

conclusionRescaling pain intensity measures may be justified in meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain. Systematic reviewers may consider this method to improve clinical interpretability and enable more data to be included. STUDY REGISTRATION/DATA AVAILABILITY: Open Science Framework (osf.io/8rq7f).

Indexed as

AnalgesicsLow Back PainAdultHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPain MeasurementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesicsLow Back PainMeta-Analysis as TopicPain MeasurementSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID36333665
PMCPMC9636623
OpenAlexW4308195636

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.