Estimating controlled direct treatment effects on pain intensity using structural mean models.

IF 3.1 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Pain Reports Pub Date : 2026-03-10 eCollection Date: 2026-04-01 DOI:10.1097/PR9.0000000000001409
Rui Wang, Patrick J Heagerty, Kwun Chuen Gary Chan, Pradeep Suri
{"title":"Estimating controlled direct treatment effects on pain intensity using structural mean models.","authors":"Rui Wang, Patrick J Heagerty, Kwun Chuen Gary Chan, Pradeep Suri","doi":"10.1097/PR9.0000000000001409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Without valid inclusion of concurrent analgesic use, the primary analyses of pain intensity in pain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may produce diminished estimated treatment effects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used contemporary causal inference methods to reanalyze RCT data examining the effect of epidural steroid injection (ESI) as an example of a pain treatment. Specifically, we define an \"attributable to ESI estimand,\" which is the controlled direct effect of ESI. We used a simple composite pain intensity outcome, the QPAC<sub>1.5,</sub> and structural mean models (SMM) to estimate the target estimand. Compared with traditional methods such as strict intention to treat analysis (strict ITT), SMMs can account for analgesic use without assuming no unmeasured confounding between the analgesic use and the outcome. We estimated treatment effects of ESI on leg pain intensity using the numeric rating scale with strict ITT, 3 SMM estimating methods (estimating equations, g-estimation, and generalized method of moments), and the QPAC<sub>1.5</sub>.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The treatment effect of ESI on leg pain intensity using strict ITT was -0.751 numeric rating scale points (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.287 to -0.214). Estimates for the attributable to ESI estimand were -0.864 (95% CI: -3.207 to 1.478) for estimating equations, -0.935 (95% CI: -1.779 to 0.090) for g-estimation, -0.653 (95% CI: -1.218 to -0.089) for generalized method of moments, and -0.930 (95% CI: -1.508 to -0.352) for the QPAC1.5.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We illustrate how contemporary causal inference methods and alternative estimands can be used to account for concurrent analgesic use in pain RCTs in a manner that may result in larger treatment effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":52189,"journal":{"name":"Pain Reports","volume":"11 2","pages":"e1409"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12978825/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Without valid inclusion of concurrent analgesic use, the primary analyses of pain intensity in pain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may produce diminished estimated treatment effects.

Methods: We used contemporary causal inference methods to reanalyze RCT data examining the effect of epidural steroid injection (ESI) as an example of a pain treatment. Specifically, we define an "attributable to ESI estimand," which is the controlled direct effect of ESI. We used a simple composite pain intensity outcome, the QPAC1.5, and structural mean models (SMM) to estimate the target estimand. Compared with traditional methods such as strict intention to treat analysis (strict ITT), SMMs can account for analgesic use without assuming no unmeasured confounding between the analgesic use and the outcome. We estimated treatment effects of ESI on leg pain intensity using the numeric rating scale with strict ITT, 3 SMM estimating methods (estimating equations, g-estimation, and generalized method of moments), and the QPAC1.5.

Results: The treatment effect of ESI on leg pain intensity using strict ITT was -0.751 numeric rating scale points (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.287 to -0.214). Estimates for the attributable to ESI estimand were -0.864 (95% CI: -3.207 to 1.478) for estimating equations, -0.935 (95% CI: -1.779 to 0.090) for g-estimation, -0.653 (95% CI: -1.218 to -0.089) for generalized method of moments, and -0.930 (95% CI: -1.508 to -0.352) for the QPAC1.5.

Discussion: We illustrate how contemporary causal inference methods and alternative estimands can be used to account for concurrent analgesic use in pain RCTs in a manner that may result in larger treatment effects.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

使用结构平均模型估计控制的直接治疗对疼痛强度的影响。
引言:如果没有有效的纳入同时使用镇痛药,疼痛随机对照试验(rct)中疼痛强度的初步分析可能会降低估计的治疗效果。方法:我们使用现代因果推理方法重新分析RCT数据,检查硬膜外类固醇注射(ESI)作为疼痛治疗的效果。具体来说,我们定义了一个“归因于ESI估计”,即ESI的可控直接效应。我们使用一个简单的复合疼痛强度结果,QPAC1.5和结构平均模型(SMM)来估计目标估计值。与传统方法如严格治疗意向分析(严格ITT)相比,SMMs可以解释镇痛药的使用,而无需假设镇痛药使用与结果之间没有不可测量的混淆。我们使用严格ITT的数值评定量表、3种SMM估计方法(估计方程、g估计和广义矩法)和QPAC1.5来评估ESI对腿痛强度的治疗效果。结果:采用严格ITT的ESI对腿部疼痛强度的治疗效果为-0.751数值评定量表点(95%置信区间[CI]: -1.287 ~ -0.214)。估计方程归因于ESI估计的估计为-0.864 (95% CI: -3.207至1.478),g估计的估计为-0.935 (95% CI: -1.779至0.090),广义矩法的估计为-0.653 (95% CI: -1.218至-0.089),QPAC1.5的估计为-0.930 (95% CI: -1.508至-0.352)。讨论:我们说明了当代因果推理方法和替代估计如何用于解释疼痛随机对照试验中并发镇痛药的使用,这种方法可能导致更大的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Reports
Pain Reports Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书