4.6 Review

Research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

期刊

PAIN
卷 149, 期 2, 页码 177-193

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.02.018

关键词

Chronic pain; Randomized clinical trials; Research design; Phase 3 trials; Subject selection

资金

  1. US Department of Veterans Affairs
  2. US Food and Drug Administration
  3. US National Institutes of Health
  4. University of Rochester Office of Continuing Professional Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There has been an increase in the number of chronic pain clinical trials in which the treatments being evaluated did not differ significantly from placebo in the primary efficacy analyses despite previous research suggesting that efficacy could be expected. These findings could reflect a true lack of efficacy or methodological and other aspects of these trials that compromise the demonstration of efficacy. There is substantial variability among chronic pain clinical trials with respect to important research design considerations, and identifying and addressing any methodological weaknesses would enhance the likelihood of demonstrating the analgesic effects of new interventions. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was therefore convened to identify the critical research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain trials and to make recommendations for their conduct. We present recommendations for the major components of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials, including participant selection, trial phases and duration, treatment groups and dosing regimens, and types of trials. Increased attention to and research on the methodological aspects of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials has the potential to enhance their assay sensitivity and ultimately provide more meaningful evaluations of treatments for chronic pain. (C) 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据