Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Tribulations: Providing Clinical Evidence for Personalized Surgical Pain Management Care Models

• Published in: Journal of personalized medicine Vol. 13; no. 7; p. 1044
• Main Authors: 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, On Behalf Of Teams/Organizations/Institutions
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 25.06.2023; MDPI
• Subjects: Bias; Care and treatment; Clinical trials; Comorbidity; Confidentiality; Costs; Information sharing; Intervention; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Pain; Pain management; Participation; Patient safety; Patients; Population studies; Precision medicine; Privacy; Skills; Statistical analysis; Surgeons; Surgery; Surgical outcomes; Surgical techniques; Brazil; Arizona; surgical clinical trials; pain generators; personalized care models; clinical evidence
• ISSN: 2075-4426; 2075-4426
• 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.