Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

Dennis C. Turk, Robert H. Dworkin, Michael P. McDermott, Nicholas Bellamy, Laurie B. Burke, Julie M. Chandler, Charles S. Cleeland, Penney Cowan, Rozalina Dimitrova, John T. Farrar, Sharon Hertz, Joseph F. Heyse, Smriti Iyengar, Alejandro R. Jadad, Gary W. Jay, John A. Jermano, Nathaniel P. Katz, Donald C. Manning, Susan Martin, Mitchell B. MaxPatrick McGrath, Henry J. McQuay, Steve Quessy, Bob A. Rappaport, Dennis A. Revicki, Margaret Rothman, Joseph W. Stauffer, Ola Svensson, Richard E. White, James Witter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)485-493
Number of pages9
JournalPain
Volume139
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 31 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Clinical Trials
Pain
Gatekeeping
Therapeutics
Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • Acute pain
  • Chronic pain
  • Clinical trials
  • Multiple endpoints
  • Multiplicity
  • Sampling error
  • Treatment outcomes
  • Type I error

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
  • Neurology
  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., McDermott, M. P., Bellamy, N., Burke, L. B., Chandler, J. M., ... Witter, J. (2008). Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 139(3), 485-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2008.06.025

Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments : IMMPACT recommendations. / Turk, Dennis C.; Dworkin, Robert H.; McDermott, Michael P.; Bellamy, Nicholas; Burke, Laurie B.; Chandler, Julie M.; Cleeland, Charles S.; Cowan, Penney; Dimitrova, Rozalina; Farrar, John T.; Hertz, Sharon; Heyse, Joseph F.; Iyengar, Smriti; Jadad, Alejandro R.; Jay, Gary W.; Jermano, John A.; Katz, Nathaniel P.; Manning, Donald C.; Martin, Susan; Max, Mitchell B.; McGrath, Patrick; McQuay, Henry J.; Quessy, Steve; Rappaport, Bob A.; Revicki, Dennis A.; Rothman, Margaret; Stauffer, Joseph W.; Svensson, Ola; White, Richard E.; Witter, James.

In: Pain, Vol. 139, No. 3, 31.10.2008, p. 485-493.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Turk, DC, Dworkin, RH, McDermott, MP, Bellamy, N, Burke, LB, Chandler, JM, Cleeland, CS, Cowan, P, Dimitrova, R, Farrar, JT, Hertz, S, Heyse, JF, Iyengar, S, Jadad, AR, Jay, GW, Jermano, JA, Katz, NP, Manning, DC, Martin, S, Max, MB, McGrath, P, McQuay, HJ, Quessy, S, Rappaport, BA, Revicki, DA, Rothman, M, Stauffer, JW, Svensson, O, White, RE & Witter, J 2008, 'Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations', Pain, vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 485-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2008.06.025
Turk DC, Dworkin RH, McDermott MP, Bellamy N, Burke LB, Chandler JM et al. Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2008 Oct 31;139(3):485-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2008.06.025
Turk, Dennis C. ; Dworkin, Robert H. ; McDermott, Michael P. ; Bellamy, Nicholas ; Burke, Laurie B. ; Chandler, Julie M. ; Cleeland, Charles S. ; Cowan, Penney ; Dimitrova, Rozalina ; Farrar, John T. ; Hertz, Sharon ; Heyse, Joseph F. ; Iyengar, Smriti ; Jadad, Alejandro R. ; Jay, Gary W. ; Jermano, John A. ; Katz, Nathaniel P. ; Manning, Donald C. ; Martin, Susan ; Max, Mitchell B. ; McGrath, Patrick ; McQuay, Henry J. ; Quessy, Steve ; Rappaport, Bob A. ; Revicki, Dennis A. ; Rothman, Margaret ; Stauffer, Joseph W. ; Svensson, Ola ; White, Richard E. ; Witter, James. / Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments : IMMPACT recommendations. In: Pain. 2008 ; Vol. 139, No. 3. pp. 485-493.
@article{e4852829ec3b4f689909432c7c6c126c,
title = "Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations",
abstract = "The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.",
keywords = "Acute pain, Chronic pain, Clinical trials, Multiple endpoints, Multiplicity, Sampling error, Treatment outcomes, Type I error",
author = "Turk, {Dennis C.} and Dworkin, {Robert H.} and McDermott, {Michael P.} and Nicholas Bellamy and Burke, {Laurie B.} and Chandler, {Julie M.} and Cleeland, {Charles S.} and Penney Cowan and Rozalina Dimitrova and Farrar, {John T.} and Sharon Hertz and Heyse, {Joseph F.} and Smriti Iyengar and Jadad, {Alejandro R.} and Jay, {Gary W.} and Jermano, {John A.} and Katz, {Nathaniel P.} and Manning, {Donald C.} and Susan Martin and Max, {Mitchell B.} and Patrick McGrath and McQuay, {Henry J.} and Steve Quessy and Rappaport, {Bob A.} and Revicki, {Dennis A.} and Margaret Rothman and Stauffer, {Joseph W.} and Ola Svensson and White, {Richard E.} and James Witter",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1016/j.pain.2008.06.025",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "139",
pages = "485--493",
journal = "Pain",
issn = "0304-3959",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments

T2 - IMMPACT recommendations

AU - Turk, Dennis C.

AU - Dworkin, Robert H.

AU - McDermott, Michael P.

AU - Bellamy, Nicholas

AU - Burke, Laurie B.

AU - Chandler, Julie M.

AU - Cleeland, Charles S.

AU - Cowan, Penney

AU - Dimitrova, Rozalina

AU - Farrar, John T.

AU - Hertz, Sharon

AU - Heyse, Joseph F.

AU - Iyengar, Smriti

AU - Jadad, Alejandro R.

AU - Jay, Gary W.

AU - Jermano, John A.

AU - Katz, Nathaniel P.

AU - Manning, Donald C.

AU - Martin, Susan

AU - Max, Mitchell B.

AU - McGrath, Patrick

AU - McQuay, Henry J.

AU - Quessy, Steve

AU - Rappaport, Bob A.

AU - Revicki, Dennis A.

AU - Rothman, Margaret

AU - Stauffer, Joseph W.

AU - Svensson, Ola

AU - White, Richard E.

AU - Witter, James

PY - 2008/10/31

Y1 - 2008/10/31

N2 - The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

AB - The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

KW - Acute pain

KW - Chronic pain

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Multiple endpoints

KW - Multiplicity

KW - Sampling error

KW - Treatment outcomes

KW - Type I error

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=53349167526&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=53349167526&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.pain.2008.06.025

DO - 10.1016/j.pain.2008.06.025

M3 - Article

C2 - 18706763

AN - SCOPUS:53349167526

VL - 139

SP - 485

EP - 493

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

SN - 0304-3959

IS - 3

ER -