Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization, Institute of Medicine

   . Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2009; 252 pages.
2. 2.↵
   Compilation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Sec 6301). Office of the Legislative Counsel [monograph on the Internet]. Washington: US House of Representatives; 2010 [Internet. Accessed August 12, 2015]. Available from: http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
3. 3.↵
   1. Gartlehner G,
   2. Flamm M

   . Is the Cochrane collaboration prepared for the era of patient-centred outcomes research? Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;3:ED000054.

   OpenUrlPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Guyatt GH,
   2. Oxman AD,
   3. Santesso N,
   4. Helfand M,
   5. Vist G,
   6. Kunz R,
   7. et al.

   GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:158–72.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Guyatt GH,
   2. Thorlund K,
   3. Oxman AD,
   4. Walter SD,
   5. Patrick D,
   6. Furukawa TA,
   7. et al.

   GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:173–83.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Higgins JPT,
   2. Green S

   1. Schünemann HJ,
   2. Oxman AD,
   3. Higgins JPT,
   4. Vist GE,
   5. Glasziou P,
   6. Guyatt GH

   . Presenting results and ‘Summary of findings’ tables; Ch 11. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org
7. 7.↵
   1. Furlan AD,
   2. Pennick V,
   3. Bombardier C,
   4. van Tulder M

   . 2009 Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 2009;34:1929–41.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Ghogomu EA,
   2. Maxwell LJ,
   3. Buchbinder R,
   4. Rader T,
   5. Pardo Pardo J,
   6. Johnston RV,
   7. et al;
   8. Editorial Board of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group

   . Updated method guidelines for Cochrane musculoskeletal group systematic reviews and metaanalyses. J Rheumatol 2014;41:194–205.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Cochrane Pain Palliative & Supportive Care Review Group

   . Authoring or assessing a Cochrane protocol, review, or review update for the PaPaS Review Group. [Internet. Accessed August 12, 2015.] Available from: http://papas.cochrane.org/sites/papas.cochrane.org/files/uploads/L%20%20PaPaSAuthor%26RefereeGuidance.pdf
10. 10.↵
    1. Eccleston C,
    2. Wiffen P,
    3. Derry S,
    4. Moore A

    . Growing pain: striving for quality, relevance and applicability in Cochrane reviews [editorial]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;5:ED000059.

    OpenUrlPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Dworkin RH,
    2. Turk DC,
    3. Farrar JT,
    4. Haythornthwaite JA,
    5. Jensen MP,
    6. Katz NP,
    7. et al.

    Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005;113:9–19.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Dworkin RH,
    2. Turk DC,
    3. Peirce-Sandner S,
    4. Burke L,
    5. Farrar JT,
    6. Gilron I

    . Considerations for improving assay sensitivity in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2012;153:1148–58.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Dworkin RH,
    2. Turk DC,
    3. Wyrwich KW,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Cleeland CS,
    6. Farrar JT,
    7. et al.

    Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105–21.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Turk D,
    2. Dworkin RH,
    3. Revicki D,
    4. Harding G,
    5. Burke LB,
    6. Cella D,
    7. et al.

    Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: An IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain 2008;137:276–85.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Higgins JPT,
    2. Green S

    1. Patrick D,
    2. Guyatt GH,
    3. Acquadro C

    . Patient-reported outcomes. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org
16. 16.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan JR,
    3. Wells G,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Gossec L,
    6. d’Agostino MA,
    7. et al.

    Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:745–53.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration

    . Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims [monograph on the Internet. Accessed August 12, 2015.] Rockville: Food and Drug Administration; 2009. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf
18. 18.↵
    1. Dieppe P

    . Chronic musculoskeletal pain. BMJ 2013;346:f3146.

    OpenUrlPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Hsieh HF,
    2. Shannon SE

    . Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1277–88.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Williamson P,
    2. Altman D,
    3. Blazeby J,
    4. Clarke M,
    5. Devane D,
    6. Gargon E,
    7. et al.

    Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 2012;13:132–9.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Mokkink LB,
    2. Terwee CB,
    3. Patrick DL,
    4. Alonso J,
    5. Stratford PW,
    6. Knol DL,
    7. et al.

    The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010;19:539–49.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Terwee CB,
    2. Mokkink LB,
    3. Knol DL,
    4. Ostelo RWJG,
    5. Bouter LM,
    6. de Vet HCW

    . Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 2012;21:651–7.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Sabatowski Schmitt J

    . Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus. Research protocol: validation and application of a core set of patient-relevant outcome domains to assess the effectiveness of a multimodal pain therapy. [Internet. Accessed August 12, 2015.] Available from: www.uniklinikum-dresden.de/das-klinikum/universitatscentren/usc/studienprojekte/vapain/download/study_description_VAPAIN_eng.pdf
24. 24.↵
    1. Ostelo R,
    2. Deyo RA,
    3. Stratford P,
    4. Waddell G,
    5. Croft P,
    6. von Korff M,
    7. et al.

    Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008;33:90–4.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Jensen MP,
    2. Johnson LE,
    3. Gertz KJ,
    4. Galer BS,
    5. Gammaitoni AR

    . The words patients use to describe chronic pain: Implications for measuring pain quality. Pain 2013;154:2722–8

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Hawker GA,
    2. Davis AM,
    3. French MR,
    4. Cibere J,
    5. Jordon JM,
    6. March L

    . Development and preliminary psychometric testing of a new OA pain measure – an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008:16:409–14.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed