Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Pain. 2018 Dec 6;20(6):664–675. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.11.010

Table 1.

Responsiveness by Retrospective Global Pain of Changea

CAMEO Trial SPACE Trial SSM Trial

Pain change MeanS RM Scoreb change SRMc (95% CI) P-valued Scoreb change SRMc (95% CI) P-valued Scoreb change SRMc (95% CI) P-valued

PROMIS 4a <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

• Better .63 4.52 .60 (.40,.81) .003 6.84 1.10 (.93,1.13) .0002 1.92 .20 (01,.40) .94
• Same .34 1.10 .23 (−.01,.46) -- 3.27 .62 (.37,.90) -- 1.47 .17 (−.03,.36) --
• Worse −.30 −1.52 −.25 (−.53,.01) .066 0.21 .08 (−.35,.59) .089 −6.11 −.70 (−.99,−.43) <.0001

PROMIS 6a <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

• Better .61 4.66 .60 (.39,.83) .003 6.92 1.06 (.92,12) <.0001 1.68 .17 (−.02,.36) .99
• Same .32 1.13 .22 (−01,.44) -- 3.05 .58 (.31,.88) -- 1.50 .17 (−.03,.36) --
• Worse −.30 −1.45 −.24 (−.53,.02) .082 −0.07 −.01 (−.46,.43) .094 −5.81 −.65 (−.92,−.39) .0001

PROMIS 8a <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

• Better .60 4.17 .55 (.35,.79) .012 6.69 1.07 (.92,1.25) .0002 1.72 .18 (−.01,.37) .98
• Same .34 1.15 .22 (−.01,.44) -- 3.17 .63 (.36,.95) 1.44 .16 (−.03,.36) --
• Worse −.25 −1.71 −.28 (−.57,−.01) .042 0.63 .16 (−.27,.65) .182 −5.54 −.63 (−.87,−.39) .0002

PROMIS 6b <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

• Better .62 4.45 .66 (.46,87) .0006 6.02 1.06 (.92,1.22) .0002 1.36 .14 (−.06,.33) .96
• Same .30 0.88 .17 (−.06,.39) -- 2.67 .53 (.30,.77) -- 1.71 .20 (−.01,.39) --
• Worse −.28 −1.10 −.20 (−.46,.06) .159 −0.06 .01 (−.40,.53) .103 −5.93 −.66 (−.91,−.42) <.0001

PROMIS average

• Better .62 .60 1.07 .17
• Same .33 .21 .59 .18
• Worse −.28 −.24 .06 −.66

BPI Interference <.0001 <.0001 .024

• Better .71 1.77 .76 (.56,.97) .0003 2.51 1.20 (1.02,1.4) <.0001 0.43 .17 (−.02,.36) .999
• Same .32 0.51 .35 (.09,.61) -- 0.64 .42 (.18,.68) -- 0.41 .19 (−.01,.38) --
• Worse −.18 −0.45 −.26 (−.54,.00) .019 0.32 .23 (−.21,.69) .78 −0.80 −.25 (−.56,.06) .033

PEG <.0001 <.0001 .034

• Better .79 1.67 .77 (.57,.99) .0005 2.61 1.43 (1.25,1.6) <.0001 0.46 .18 (−.01,.37) .994
• Same .36 0.53 .31 (.08,.54) -- 0.86 .60 (.35,.87) -- 0.42 .18 (−.02,.39) --
• Worse −.13 −0.34 −.22 (−.49,.04) .028 0.14 .09 (−.34,.57) .203 −0.73 −.25 (−.57,.06) .048

SF Bodily Paind <.0001

• Better 8.13 .47 (.29,.66) .838
• Same 6.71 .54 (.29,.79) --
• Worse −3.50 −.20 (−.45,.04) .001

Roland-Morrisd <.0001

• Better 2.90 .56 (.40,.73) .019
• Same 1.01 .27 (.05,.49) --
• Worse −0.84 −.23 (−.49,.02) .048
a

Total N (better, same, worse) with baseline and follow-up data in CAMEO = 234 (104, 68, 62); in SPACE = 222 (134, 66, 22); and in SSM = 238 (102, 96, 40)

b

Score change = baseline - follow-up (Positive score: improvement, negative score: worsening)

c

SRM = baseline – follow-up / SD change score;

d

Bolded p-values are from omnibus ANOVA tests comparing changes scores among three change groups. Other p values were derived from t-test comparing change scores between_reference (i.e. “same”) and changed (“better” or “worse”) groups and were adjusted for multiple comparison