Bias in amputation research; impact of subjects missed from a prospective study.

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 08/2012; 7(8):e43629. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043629
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT For research findings to be generalized, a sample must be representative of the actual population of interest. Lower limb amputation is most frequently performed in older patients with vascular disease, a population that is often under-represented in research. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of selection bias by comparing characteristics from a sample included in a prospective study of phantom pain with the actual population who underwent amputation. Only 27% of all potential patients were referred during the first year of the prospective study. The referred patients were 8 years younger (p<0.001) and less likely to have had amputation because of a vascular condition, diabetes or infection (p=0.003) than those not referred. There was also a significant difference in one year survival between the groups; 67% of referred patients survived compared with just 40% of non-referred patients (p=0.004). The biased population in the phantom pain study may have resulted in an underestimation of phantom pain in the original study and subsequent protective factors should be considered within the context of the younger population reported. Selection bias is common in amputation research, and research methods to minimize its impact must be given greater attention.

Download full-text


Available from: Jan H Geertzen, Jun 29, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To ascertain the existence of contralateral painful muscle areas mirroring phantom pain and to evaluate the short-term effects of anaesthetic vs saline, injected contra notlaterally to control phantom and phantom limb pain. Double-blinded cross-over study. Inpatients; rehabilitation institute. Eight lower limb amputees with phantom limb pain in the past 6 months. Either 1 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine or 0.9% saline injected alternately in each point with a 28-gauge needle, with 72 h between injections. Main outcome measurePhantom sensation modification and the intensity of phantom limb pain (visual analogue scale) before and after injections. Although present, painful muscle areas in the healthy limb do not mirror the topographical distribution of phantom limb pain. Sixty minutes after the injection, a statistically significant greater relief of phantom limb pain was observed after using local anaesthetic than when using saline injection (p = 0.003). Bupivacaine consistently reduced/abolished the phantom sensation in 6 out of 8 patients. These effects on phantom sensation were not observed after saline injections. Contralateral injections of 1 ml 0.25% bupivacaine in myofascial hyperalgesic areas attenuated phantom limb pain and affected phantom limb sensation. The clinical importance of this treatment method requires further investigation.
    Journal of rehabilitation medicine: official journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 06/2009; 41(6):418-22. DOI:10.2340/16501977-0353 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Phantom limb pain may appear in up to 85% of patients after amputation. There is no effective treatment. Perioperative epidural infusion of morphine and bupivacaine, alone or in combination, is effective in preventing phantom limb pain in patients with pre-existing limb pain. Serious side-effects, however, make them difficult to manage on a general ward. Clonidine has been shown to be an effective postoperative analgesia when applied epidurally. To mitigate the potentially serious side-effects of all these drugs, we have studied their combined efficiency in preventing phantom limb pain in a prospective controlled study of 24 patients undergoing lower limb amputation. In the study group (n = 13), an epidural infusion containing bupivacaine 75 mg, clonidine 150 micrograms and diamorphine 5 mg in 60 ml normal saline was given at 1-4 ml/h 24-48 h preoperatively and maintained for at least 3 days postoperatively. The control group (n = 11) received on-demand opioid analgesia. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale at 7 days, 6 months and 1 year. At 1 year follow-up, one patient in the study group and eight patients in the control group had phantom pain (P < 0.002) and two patients in the study group versus eight patients in the control group had phantom limb sensation (P < 0.05). There was no significant improvement in stump pain. We conclude that perioperative epidural infusion of diamorphine, clonidine and bupivacaine is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of phantom pain after amputation.
    Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England 09/1994; 76(5):324-6. · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective was to examine the evidence to determine the optimal management of phantom limb pain in the preoperative and postoperative phase of amputations. Trials were identified by a systematic search of MEDLINE, review articles, and references of relevant trials from the period 1966-1999, including only English-language articles. Included trials involved a control group, any intervention, and reported phantom pain as an outcome. Twelve trials were identified, including 375 patients whose follow-ups ranged in duration from 1 week to 2 years. Only three randomized, controlled studies with parallel groups and three randomized crossover trials were identified. Eight trials examined treatment of acute phantom pain, including epidural treatments (three trials), regional nerve blocks (three trials), treatment with calcitonin (one trial), and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (one trial). Three trials demonstrated a positive impact of the intervention on phantom limb pain, but the remainder demonstrated no difference between the intervention and control groups. Four trials examined late postoperative interventions, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (two trials) and the use of Farabloc (a metal threaded sock) and ketamine (one trial each). With regard to late postoperative interventions, three of the four trials showed modest short-term reduction of phantom limb pain. There was no relation between the quality of the trial and a positive result of the intervention. Although up to 70% of patients have phantom limb pain after amputation, there is little evidence from randomized trials to guide clinicians with treatment. Evidence on preemptive epidurals, early regional nerve blocks, and mechanical vibratory stimulation provides inconsistent support for these treatments. There is currently a gap between research and practice in the area of phantom limb pain.
    Clinical Journal of Pain 01/2002; 18(2):84-92. DOI:10.1097/00002508-200203000-00003 · 2.70 Impact Factor