Identifying the Minimum Clinically Significant Difference in Acute Pain in the Elderly
Study objective
To identify the minimum clinically significant difference in pain in elderly emergency department (ED) patients.
Methods
This was an observational, prospective study of a convenience sample of patients aged 65 years or older with acute pain. Patients rated their pain on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) on entering the study and every 30 minutes for 2 hours. The arithmetic minimum clinically significant difference was defined as the mean difference between current and preceding NRS scores when the subject described his or her pain as “a little less pain” or “a little more pain.” The proportional minimum clinically significant difference was change in NRS in a 30-minute interval divided by the NRS at the beginning of the interval. We used generalized estimating equations to adjust for nonindependence of pain scores and to test trend over time.
Results
One hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled (mean age 74 years; 73% women; 51% Hispanic; 33% black). The arithmetic minimum clinically significant difference averaged over all periods was 1.5 (95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6), the proportional minimum clinically significant difference was 25% (95% confidence interval 20% to 29%). The arithmetic minimum clinically significant difference unexpectedly decreased over time: 2.1 from baseline to 30 minutes, 1.4 from 30 to 60 minutes, 1.3 from 60 to 90 minutes, and 1.0 from 90 to 120 minutes (P<.001). In contrast, the proportional differences were more stable: 27% from baseline to 30 minutes, 22% from 30 to 60 minutes, 22% from 60 to 90 minutes, and 28% from 90 to 120 minutes (P=.89).
Conclusion
The arithmetic minimum clinically significant difference in older ED patients was 1.5 NRS units and decreased over time, whereas the proportional change was 25% and more stable.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Supervising editor: Donald M. Yealy, MD
Author contributions: PEB, AKC, DE, and EJG conceived and designed the study. DE and AKC supervised the conduct of the study and data collection. PEB conducted the data analysis and drafted the article. All authors contributed to its revisions and reviewed the final submission. PEB takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article that might create any potential conflict of interest. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement. Dr. Bijur was partially supported by the National Institute of Nursing Research 1R21NR010929.
Publication date: Available online March 29, 2010.
Reprints not available from the authors.
Please see page 518 for the Editor's Capsule Summary of this article.
PII: S0196-0644(10)00120-4
doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.02.007
© 2009 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
