Estimating Relative Efficacy in Acute Postoperative Pain: Network Meta-Analysis is Consistent with Indirect Comparison to Placebo Alone

R. Andrew Moore, Sheena Derry, Philip J Wiffen, Samik Banerjee, Rajesh Karan, Ekkehard Glimm, Anna Wiksten, Dominic Aldington, Christopher Eccleston

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Network meta-analysis uses direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across them. Network meta-analysis uses more data than a series of direct comparisons with placebo, and theoretically should produce more reliable results. We used a Cochrane overview review of acute postoperative pain trials and other systematic reviews to provide data to test this hypothesis. Some 261 trials published between 1966 and 2016 included 39,753 patients examining 52 active drug and dose combinations (27,726 given active drug and 12,027 placebo), in any type of surgery (72% dental). Most trials were small; 42% of patients were in trials with arms <50 patients, and 27% in trials with arms ≥100 patients. Response to placebo in third molar extraction fell by half in studies over 30 to 40 years (171 trials, 7882 patients given placebo). Network meta-analysis and Cochrane analyses provided very similar results (average difference 0.04 number needed to treat units), with no significant difference for almost all comparisons apart from some with small patient numbers or small effect size, or both. Network meta-analysis did not detect significant differences between effective analgesics. The similarity between network meta-analysis and Cochrane indirect analyses probably arose from stringent quality criteria in trials accepted in Cochrane reviews (with consequent low risk of bias) and consistency in methods and outcomes. Network meta-analysis is a useful analytical tool that increases our confidence in estimates of efficacy of analgesics in acute postoperative pain, in this case by providing similar results.

LanguageEnglish
Pages2234-2244
Number of pages11
JournalPain
Volume159
Issue number11
Early online date10 Jul 2018
DOIs
StatusPublished - 1 Nov 2018

Fingerprint

Acute Pain
Postoperative Pain
Placebos
Analgesics
Arm
Third Molar
Drug Combinations
Network Meta-Analysis
Tooth
Randomized Controlled Trials
Pharmaceutical Preparations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Estimating Relative Efficacy in Acute Postoperative Pain : Network Meta-Analysis is Consistent with Indirect Comparison to Placebo Alone. / Moore, R. Andrew; Derry, Sheena; Wiffen, Philip J; Banerjee, Samik; Karan, Rajesh; Glimm, Ekkehard; Wiksten, Anna; Aldington, Dominic; Eccleston, Christopher.

In: Pain, Vol. 159, No. 11, 01.11.2018, p. 2234-2244.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Moore, RA, Derry, S, Wiffen, PJ, Banerjee, S, Karan, R, Glimm, E, Wiksten, A, Aldington, D & Eccleston, C 2018, 'Estimating Relative Efficacy in Acute Postoperative Pain: Network Meta-Analysis is Consistent with Indirect Comparison to Placebo Alone', Pain, vol. 159, no. 11, pp. 2234-2244. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001322
Moore, R. Andrew ; Derry, Sheena ; Wiffen, Philip J ; Banerjee, Samik ; Karan, Rajesh ; Glimm, Ekkehard ; Wiksten, Anna ; Aldington, Dominic ; Eccleston, Christopher. / Estimating Relative Efficacy in Acute Postoperative Pain : Network Meta-Analysis is Consistent with Indirect Comparison to Placebo Alone. In: Pain. 2018 ; Vol. 159, No. 11. pp. 2234-2244.
@article{96660fb89cbf45f4ae097a2c77ec326f,
title = "Estimating Relative Efficacy in Acute Postoperative Pain: Network Meta-Analysis is Consistent with Indirect Comparison to Placebo Alone",
abstract = "Network meta-analysis uses direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across them. Network meta-analysis uses more data than a series of direct comparisons with placebo, and theoretically should produce more reliable results. We used a Cochrane overview review of acute postoperative pain trials and other systematic reviews to provide data to test this hypothesis. Some 261 trials published between 1966 and 2016 included 39,753 patients examining 52 active drug and dose combinations (27,726 given active drug and 12,027 placebo), in any type of surgery (72{\%} dental). Most trials were small; 42{\%} of patients were in trials with arms <50 patients, and 27{\%} in trials with arms ≥100 patients. Response to placebo in third molar extraction fell by half in studies over 30 to 40 years (171 trials, 7882 patients given placebo). Network meta-analysis and Cochrane analyses provided very similar results (average difference 0.04 number needed to treat units), with no significant difference for almost all comparisons apart from some with small patient numbers or small effect size, or both. Network meta-analysis did not detect significant differences between effective analgesics. The similarity between network meta-analysis and Cochrane indirect analyses probably arose from stringent quality criteria in trials accepted in Cochrane reviews (with consequent low risk of bias) and consistency in methods and outcomes. Network meta-analysis is a useful analytical tool that increases our confidence in estimates of efficacy of analgesics in acute postoperative pain, in this case by providing similar results.",
author = "Moore, {R. Andrew} and Sheena Derry and Wiffen, {Philip J} and Samik Banerjee and Rajesh Karan and Ekkehard Glimm and Anna Wiksten and Dominic Aldington and Christopher Eccleston",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001322",
language = "English",
volume = "159",
pages = "2234--2244",
journal = "Pain",
issn = "0304-3959",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Estimating Relative Efficacy in Acute Postoperative Pain

T2 - Pain

AU - Moore, R. Andrew

AU - Derry, Sheena

AU - Wiffen, Philip J

AU - Banerjee, Samik

AU - Karan, Rajesh

AU - Glimm, Ekkehard

AU - Wiksten, Anna

AU - Aldington, Dominic

AU - Eccleston, Christopher

PY - 2018/11/1

Y1 - 2018/11/1

N2 - Network meta-analysis uses direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across them. Network meta-analysis uses more data than a series of direct comparisons with placebo, and theoretically should produce more reliable results. We used a Cochrane overview review of acute postoperative pain trials and other systematic reviews to provide data to test this hypothesis. Some 261 trials published between 1966 and 2016 included 39,753 patients examining 52 active drug and dose combinations (27,726 given active drug and 12,027 placebo), in any type of surgery (72% dental). Most trials were small; 42% of patients were in trials with arms <50 patients, and 27% in trials with arms ≥100 patients. Response to placebo in third molar extraction fell by half in studies over 30 to 40 years (171 trials, 7882 patients given placebo). Network meta-analysis and Cochrane analyses provided very similar results (average difference 0.04 number needed to treat units), with no significant difference for almost all comparisons apart from some with small patient numbers or small effect size, or both. Network meta-analysis did not detect significant differences between effective analgesics. The similarity between network meta-analysis and Cochrane indirect analyses probably arose from stringent quality criteria in trials accepted in Cochrane reviews (with consequent low risk of bias) and consistency in methods and outcomes. Network meta-analysis is a useful analytical tool that increases our confidence in estimates of efficacy of analgesics in acute postoperative pain, in this case by providing similar results.

AB - Network meta-analysis uses direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across them. Network meta-analysis uses more data than a series of direct comparisons with placebo, and theoretically should produce more reliable results. We used a Cochrane overview review of acute postoperative pain trials and other systematic reviews to provide data to test this hypothesis. Some 261 trials published between 1966 and 2016 included 39,753 patients examining 52 active drug and dose combinations (27,726 given active drug and 12,027 placebo), in any type of surgery (72% dental). Most trials were small; 42% of patients were in trials with arms <50 patients, and 27% in trials with arms ≥100 patients. Response to placebo in third molar extraction fell by half in studies over 30 to 40 years (171 trials, 7882 patients given placebo). Network meta-analysis and Cochrane analyses provided very similar results (average difference 0.04 number needed to treat units), with no significant difference for almost all comparisons apart from some with small patient numbers or small effect size, or both. Network meta-analysis did not detect significant differences between effective analgesics. The similarity between network meta-analysis and Cochrane indirect analyses probably arose from stringent quality criteria in trials accepted in Cochrane reviews (with consequent low risk of bias) and consistency in methods and outcomes. Network meta-analysis is a useful analytical tool that increases our confidence in estimates of efficacy of analgesics in acute postoperative pain, in this case by providing similar results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055075844&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001322

DO - 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001322

M3 - Article

VL - 159

SP - 2234

EP - 2244

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

SN - 0304-3959

IS - 11

ER -