4.6 Review

Minimal clinically important differences in randomised clinical trials on pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 126, 期 5, 页码 1029-1037

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.01.021

关键词

attrition; minimal clinically important difference; numerical analogue scale; patient-controlled analgesia; postoperative morphine consumption; postoperative pain treatment; power calculation; visual analogue scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed randomized trials of analgesic interventions after total hip or knee arthroplasty, identifying MCIDs for pain scores and rescue opioid consumption. However, a significant proportion of trials still had inadequate sample size calculations, and a portion of significant results did not reach the predetermined MCID.
Background: Sample size determination is essential for reliable hypothesis testing in clinical trials and should rely on adequate sample size calculations with alpha, beta, variance, and an effect size being the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This facilitates interpretation of the clinical relevance of statistically significant results. No gold standard for MCIDs exists in postoperative pain research. Methods: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for English language articles on randomised trials investigating analgesic interventions after total hip or knee arthroplasty. Primary outcomes were the reported MCIDs for pain score and cumulated rescue opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included reported sample size calculations and propensity to report statistical significance without reaching MCID. Trend analyses were conducted using statistical process control. Results: We included 570 trials. Median MCID for 0-24 h opioid consumption was 10 mg i.v. morphine equivalents for absolute reductions (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.8-14.5) and relative 40% (IQR: 30-50%). Median MCIDs for pain scores were absolute 15 mm at rest (IQR: 10-20) and 18 mm during movement (IQR: 10-20) on a 0-100 mm VAS and relative 30% (IQR: 20-30%). No trends were demonstrated for MCIDs. Adequate sample size calculations were reported in 34% of trials. In 46% of trials with statistically significant primary outcomes, the differences did not reach the predetermined MCID. Conclusions: We provide clinician-perceived MCID estimates for rescue opioid consumption and pain scores that can be used for sample size calculations until reliable evidence-based patient-rated MCIDs emerge. Nearly half of the trials with significant findings did not reach the predetermined MCID.

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