Abraham Ivo, Lewandrowski Kai-Uwe, Elfar John C, Li Zong-Ming, Fiorelli Rossano Kepler Alvim, Pereira Mauricio G, Lorio Morgan P, Burkhardt Benedikt W, Oertel Joachim M, Winkler Peter A, Yang Huilin, León Jorge Felipe Ramírez, Telfeian Albert E, Dowling Álvaro, Vargas Roth A A, Ramina Ricardo, Asefi Marjan, de Carvalho Paulo Sérgio Teixeira, Defino Helton, Moyano Jaime, Montemurro Nicola, Yeung Anthony, Novellino Pietro
Pharmacy Medicine, and Clinical Translational Sciences, University of Arizona, Roy P. Drachman Hall, Rm. B306H, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Center for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85712, USA.
J Pers Med. 2023 Jun 25;13(7):1044. doi: 10.3390/jpm13071044.
Proving clinical superiority of personalized care models in interventional and surgical pain management is challenging. The apparent difficulties may arise from the inability to standardize complex surgical procedures that often involve multiple steps. Ensuring the surgery is performed the same way every time is nearly impossible. Confounding factors, such as the variability of the patient population and selection bias regarding comorbidities and anatomical variations are also difficult to control for. Small sample sizes in study groups comparing iterations of a surgical protocol may amplify bias. It is essentially impossible to conceal the surgical treatment from the surgeon and the operating team. Restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria may distort the study population to no longer reflect patients seen in daily practice. Hindsight bias is introduced by the inability to effectively blind patient group allocation, which affects clinical result interpretation, particularly if the outcome is already known to the investigators when the outcome analysis is performed (often a long time after the intervention). Randomization is equally problematic, as many patients want to avoid being randomly assigned to a study group, particularly if they perceive their surgeon to be unsure of which treatment will likely render the best clinical outcome for them. Ethical concerns may also exist if the study involves additional and unnecessary risks. Lastly, surgical trials are costly, especially if the tested interventions are complex and require long-term follow-up to assess their benefit. Traditional clinical testing of personalized surgical pain management treatments may be more challenging because individualized solutions tailored to each patient's pain generator can vary extensively. However, high-grade evidence is needed to prompt a protocol change and break with traditional image-based criteria for treatment. In this article, the authors review issues in surgical trials and offer practical solutions.
证明个性化护理模式在介入性和手术性疼痛管理中的临床优越性具有挑战性。明显的困难可能源于无法标准化复杂的外科手术程序,这些程序通常涉及多个步骤。确保每次手术都以相同方式进行几乎是不可能的。混杂因素,如患者群体的变异性以及合并症和解剖变异方面的选择偏倚,也难以控制。在比较手术方案迭代的研究组中样本量较小可能会放大偏倚。实际上,很难对外科医生和手术团队隐瞒手术治疗情况。严格的纳入和排除标准可能会使研究人群失真,不再反映日常实践中所见到的患者情况。由于无法有效对患者分组分配进行盲法处理而引入的事后诸葛亮式偏倚,会影响对临床结果的解释,特别是当在进行结果分析时(通常是在干预后很长时间)研究人员已经知道结果的情况下。随机化同样存在问题,因为许多患者希望避免被随机分配到研究组,尤其是当他们认为自己的外科医生不确定哪种治疗可能会为他们带来最佳临床结果时。如果研究涉及额外且不必要的风险,也可能存在伦理问题。最后,外科试验成本高昂,特别是如果所测试的干预措施复杂且需要长期随访以评估其益处。个性化手术疼痛管理治疗的传统临床测试可能更具挑战性,因为针对每个患者疼痛源量身定制的个性化解决方案差异可能很大。然而,需要高级别的证据来促使改变方案并打破基于传统影像学的治疗标准。在本文中,作者回顾了外科试验中的问题并提供了实际解决方案。