Premium
Analgesic efficacy of an orally administered combination of pentazocine and aspirin; With observations on the use and statistical efficiency of GLOBAL subjective efficacy ratings
Author(s) -
Calimlim J. F.,
Wardell W. M.,
Davis H. T.,
Lasagna Louis,
Gillies A. J.
Publication year - 1977
Publication title -
clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.941
H-Index - 188
eISSN - 1532-6535
pISSN - 0009-9236
DOI - 10.1002/cpt197721134
Subject(s) - pentazocine , analgesic , aspirin , placebo , medicine , anesthesia , alternative medicine , pathology
The analgesic efficacy of a combination of pentazocine and aspirin (PA) in the ratio 1:13 was compared with that of 650 mg of aspirin alone (A650) and with placebo (PBO), in 98 patients with postoperative pain. Two dose levels of the combination were compared: the lower dose (PA‐L) consisted of pentazocine 25 mg and aspirin 325 mg, while the higher dose (PA‐H) consisted of pentazocine 50 mg and aspirin 650 mg. All active treatments performed significantly better than PBO. PA‐L performed as well as A650, while PA‐H performed significantly better than A650. In addition to the usual subjective measures of analgesia, we obtained in 74 patients an evaluation of the overall (GLOBAL) performance of the treatment. This was rated on an ordinal scale of 1 (“poor”) to 5 (“excellent”). On the GLOBAL scale, PBO had a mean score of 2.4 (fair‐good); A650 and PA‐L had scores of 3.6 and 3.9, respectively (good‐very good): and PA‐H had a score of 4.5 (very good‐excellent). In five of six comparisons between treatment means, GLOBAL had the best discriminating power of all six measures. In the two comparisons of greatest interest (A650 against PBO and PA‐H against A650), GLOBAL was more than twice as efficient as the TOTAL (summed pain score) measure. In comparing the statistical efficiency of different measures of the same analgesic effect, there is a problem in determining what are “clinically equivalent differences” on the various analgesic scales employed. We propose the use of the observed sample differences and the safeguard of repeating the comparisons over several studies to minimize the effect of random‐origin bias.