Initial Estimates of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI): A Systematic Meta-Analysis
Canori, A.; Howard, R.; Bower, J.; Putrino, D.; Tabecof, L.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) is a commonly used assessment in neuropathic pain (NP) trials, yet a Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) has not been established. An MCID would enhance the interpretability of NPSI scores, guiding clinicians and researchers in assessing clinically important improvements in NP symptoms. The aim of this study was to calculate an MCID from the available scientific research that used the NPSI. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of NP trials reporting the NPSI. Four distributional approaches were applied to estimate the MCID: 1) meta-regression on the set of standard deviation (SD) of change scores, 2) meta-regression on the set of baseline SD scores, 3) simple aggregation on the set of SD of change scores, and 4) simple aggregation on the set of baseline SD scores. Only treatment arms within Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were examined for MCID estimation. Control arms were examined separately in a sensitivity analysis using the simple aggregation method for both SD of change and baseline SD sets. Bias for each included study was assessed using the Cochrane tool for quality assessment of randomized controlled trials. Results323 trials were examined, 12 were selected for inclusion with a total of 17 treatment arms. The calculated MCID estimates for the NPSI total score (range 1-100) were 6.21 for the SD of change meta-regression and 7.1 for baseline SD meta regression. The MCID values aggregated using simple aggregation methods were 7.95 using pooled SD of change scores, 7.8 using pooled baseline SD. Control arms had a MCID of 8.04 for SD of Change and 8.71 for Baseline SD. ConclusionThis study provides preliminary MCID estimates for the NPSI. Limitations include limited data for NP subtypes, highlighting the need for additional anchor-based and etiology-specific MCID research to refine these estimates. These findings can aid in future NP trial design and the interpretation of results.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Can a specific biobehavioral based therapeutic education program lead to changes in pain perception and brain plasticity biomarkers in chronic pain patients? A study protocol for a randomized clinical trial 96%
- Interventions to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic non-cancer pain in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis 95%
- Spatial summation of pain is associated with pain expectations: Results from a home-based paradigm 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Management of Central Post-Stroke Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 97%
- Sensory profiling in classical Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: a case-control study revealing pain characteristics, somatosensory changes, and impaired pain modulation 95%
- Improving Power and Accuracy in Randomized Controlled Trials of Pain Treatments by Accounting for Concurrent Analgesic Use 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pain Reduction by Inducing Sensory-Motor Adaptation in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS PRISMA): Protocol for a Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial 94%
- Audio-Visual Stimulation Therapy for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Sham-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial 94%
- L-arginine and aged garlic extract for the prevention of migraine: a study protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase-II trial (LARGE trial) 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Autonomic Nervous System Markers of Music-Elicited Analgesia in People with Fibromyalgia: A Double-Blind Randomized Pilot Study 94%
- Short-term variability of chronic musculoskeletal pain 93%
- Tissue damage-induced axon injury-associated responses in sensory neurons - requirements, prevention, and potential role in persistent post-surgical pain 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.