Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

Pain after combat injury in male UK military personnel deployed to Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain after injury poses a serious health burden. As a result of advances in medical technology, ever more military personnel survive severe combat injuries, but long-term pain outcomes are unknown. We aimed to assess rates of pain in a representative sample of UK military personnel with and without combat injuries. METHODS: We used data from the ADVANCE cohort study (ISRCTN57285353). Individuals deployed as UK armed forces to Afghanistan were recruited to include those with physical combat injuries, and a frequency-matched uninjured comparison group. Participants completed self-reported questionnaires, including 'overall' pain intensity and self-assessment of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: A total of 579 participants with combat injury, including 161 with amputations, and 565 uninjured participants were included in the analysis (median 8 yr since injury/deployment). Frequency of moderate or severe pain was 18% (n=202), and was higher in the injured group (n=140, 24%) compared with the uninjured group (n=62, 11%, relative risk: 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-1.2, P<0.001), and lower in the amputation injury subgroup (n=31, 19%) compared with the non-amputation injury subgroup (n=109, 26%, relative risk: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.9-1.0, P=0.034). Presence of at least moderate pain was associated with higher rates of post-traumatic stress (RR: 3.7, 95% CI: 2.7-5.0), anxiety (RR: 3.2, 95% CI: 2.4-4.3), and depression (RR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.7-4.5) after accounting for injury. CONCLUSION: Combat injury, but not amputation, was associated with a higher frequency of moderate to severe pain intensity in this cohort, and pain was associated with adverse mental health outcomes.

Beyond numbers: integrating qualitative analysis into quantitative sensory testing for neuropathic pain.

This article investigates the benefits of adopting qualitative and quantitative sensory testing (QQST) in sensory assessment, with a focus on understanding neuropathic pain. The innovative QQST method combines participant qualitative experiences with quantitative psychophysical measurements, offering a more varied interpretation of sensory abnormalities and normal sensory function. This article also explores the steps for the optimization of the method by identifying qualitative signs of sensory abnormalities and standardizing data collection. By leveraging the inherent subjectivity in the test design and participant responses, the QQST method contributes to a more holistic exploration of both normal and abnormal sensory experiences. This article positions the QQST approach as a foundational element within the Sensory Evaluation Network, uniting international experts to harmonize qualitative and quantitative sensory evaluation methods.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

ABSTRACT: In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Placebo and nocebo responses in painful diabetic neuropathy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: This preregistered (CRD42021223379) systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to characterize the placebo and nocebo responses in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), updating the previous literature by a decade. Four databases were searched for PDN trials published in the past 20 years, testing oral medications, adopting a parallel-group design. Magnitude of placebo or nocebo responses, Cochrane risk of bias, heterogeneity, and moderators were evaluated. Searches identified 21 studies (2425 placebo-treated patients). The overall mean pooled placebo response was -1.54 change in the pain intensity from baseline [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.52, -1.56, I 2 = 72], with a moderate effect size (Cohen d = 0.72). The pooled placebo 50% response rate was 25% [95% CI: 22, 29, I 2 = 50%]. The overall percentage of patients with adverse events (AEs) in the placebo arms was 53.3% [95% CI: 50.9, 55.7], with 5.1% [95% CI: 4.2, 6] of patients dropping out due to AEs. The year of study initiation was the only significant moderator of placebo response (regression coefficient = -0.06, [95% CI: -0.10, -0.02, P = 0.007]). More recent RCTs tended to be longer, bigger, and to include older patients (N = 21, rs = 0.455, P = 0.038, rs = 0.600, P = 0.004, rs = 0.472, P = 0.031, respectively). Our findings confirm the magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses, identify the year of study initiation as the only significant moderator of placebo response, draw attention to contextual factors such as confidence in PDN treatments, patients' previous negative experiences, intervention duration, and information provided to patients before enrollment.

Reliability of quantitative sensory testing in the assessment of somatosensory function after high-frequency stimulation-induced sensitisation of central nociceptive pathways.

ABSTRACT: The high frequency stimulation (HFS) model can be used alongside quantitative sensory testing (QST) to assess the sensitisation of central nociceptive pathways. However, the validity and between-session reliability of using QST z -score profiles to measure changes in mechanical and thermal afferent pathways in the HFS model are poorly understood. In this study, 32 healthy participants underwent QST before and after HFS (5× 100 Hz trains; 10× electrical detection threshold) in the same heterotopic skin area across 2 repeated sessions. The only mechanical QST z -score profiles that demonstrated a consistent gain of function across repeated test sessions were mechanical pain threshold (MPT) and mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS), which were associated with moderate and good reliability, respectively. There was no relationship between HFS intensity and MPT and MPS z -score profiles. There was no change in low intensity, but a consistent facilitation of high-intensity pin prick stimuli in the mechanical stimulus response function across repeated test sessions. There was no change in cold pain threshold (CPT) and heat pain threshold (HPT) z -score profiles across session 1 and 2, which were associated with moderate and good reliability, respectively. There were inconsistent changes in the sensitivity to innocuous thermal QST parameters, with cool detection threshold (CDT), warm detection threshold (WDT), and thermal sensory limen (TSL) all producing poor reliability. These data suggest that HFS-induced changes in MPS z -score profiles is a reliable way to assess experimentally induced central sensitisation and associated secondary mechanical hyperalgesia in healthy participants.

Paradoxical heat sensation as a manifestation of thermal hypesthesia: a study of 1090 patients with lesions of the somatosensory system.

ABSTRACT: Paradoxical heat sensation (PHS) is the perception of warmth when the skin is cooled. Paradoxical heat sensation rarely occurs in healthy individuals but more frequently in patients suffering from lesions or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. To further understand mechanisms and epidemiology of PHS, we evaluated the occurrence of PHS in relation to disease aetiology, pain levels, quantitative sensory testing parameters, and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) items in patients with nervous system lesions. Data of 1090 patients, including NPSI scores from 404 patients, were included in the analysis. We tested 11 quantitative sensory testing parameters for thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds, and 10 NPSI items in a multivariate generalised linear model with PHS, aetiology, and pain (yes or no) as fixed effects. In total, 30% of the neuropathic patients reported PHS in contrast to 2% of healthy individuals. The frequency of PHS was not linked to the presence or intensity of pain. Paradoxical heat sensation was more frequent in patients living with polyneuropathy compared with central or unilateral peripheral nerve lesions. Patients who reported PHS demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity to thermal perception, with lower sensitivity to normally painful heat and cold stimuli. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were lower for burning and electric shock-like pain quality for patients with PHS. Our findings suggest that PHS is associated with loss of small thermosensory fibre function normally involved in cold and warm perception. Clinically, presence of PHS could help screening for loss of small fibre function as it is straightforward to measure or self-reported by patients.

Responsiveness of multiple patient-reported outcome measures for acute postsurgical pain: primary results from the international multi-centre PROMPT NIT-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Postsurgical outcome measures are crucial to define the efficacy of perioperative pain management; however, it is unclear which are most appropriate. We conducted a prospective study aiming to assess sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures assessing the core outcome set of domains pain intensity (at rest/during activity), physical function, adverse events, and self-efficacy. METHODS: Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively, on day 1 (d1), d3, and d7 after four surgical procedures (total knee replacement, breast surgery, endometriosis-related surgery, and sternotomy). Primary outcomes were sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures analysed by correlating their changes (d1-d3) with patients' global impression of change and patients' specific impression of change items as anchor criteria. Secondary outcomes included identification of baseline and patient characteristic variables explaining variance in change for each of the scales and descriptive analysis of various patient-reported outcome measures from different domains and after different surgeries. RESULTS: Of 3322 patients included (18 hospitals, 10 countries), data from 2661 patients were analysed. All patient-reported outcome measures improved on average over time; the median calculated sensitivity-to-change for all patient-reported outcome measures (overall surgeries) was 0.22 (range: 0.07-0.31, scale: 0-10); all changes were independent of baseline data or patient characteristics and similar between different procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Pain-related patient-reported outcome measures have low to moderate sensitivity-to-change; those showing higher sensitivity-to-change from the same domain should be considered for inclusion in a core outcome set of patient-reported outcome measures to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of perioperative pain management.

Placebo analgesia in physical and psychological interventions: Systematic review and meta-analysis of three-armed trials.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude of placebo effects from physical and psychological 'sham' is unknown but could impact efficacy trials and treatment understanding. To quantify placebo effects, this systematic review of three-armed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical and psychological interventions for pain compared outcomes in 'sham' control intervention and non-exposure arms. METHODS: RCTs with treatment, 'sham' control intervention, and non-exposure groups were included, enrolling adults with any pain. A protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42023413324), and twelve databases searched from 2008 to July 2023. Trial methods and blinding were analysed descriptively and risk of bias assessed. Meta-analysis of pain measures at short-, medium- and long-term was performed with random-effects models of standardised mean differences (SMD).Studies were sub-grouped according to control intervention type. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were included. The average short-term placebo effect was small (0.21 SMD, 0.1-0.33 95% CI, p = 0.0002, 1440 participants). It showed no heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.1, I2 = 11%, p = 0.3), preventing meta-regression analyses of effect modifiers. However, sub-group analyses revealed larger placebo effects in manual control interventions compared to disabled devices and miscellaneous control interventions. Overall, placebo analgesia accounted for 39% of treatments' short-term effectiveness. No placebo effects were found at medium-term (7 RCTs, 381 participants) or long-term follow-up (3 RCTs, 173 participants). CONCLUSIONS: The observed placebo analgesia has mechanistic and methodological implications, though its clinical importance may be limited. Control intervention design affects placebo effects, highlighting the importance of considering methodology in RCT interpretation. Review limitations include a small number of long-term studies and sample heterogeneity. SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review directly quantifies placebo effects from physical and psychological 'sham' control interventions and compares them to treatments' overall effectiveness. By doing so, the review enhances our understanding of placebo effects, their relative contribution in clinical trials, and their susceptibly to trial design. It poses further questions regarding the influence of blinding, participant expectations, and features of the therapeutic context. Overall, the insights provided by this review carry methodological significance and are important for the interpretation and synthesis of efficacy trials in this field.

Machine learning and artificial intelligence in neuroscience: A primer for researchers.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is often used to describe the automation of complex tasks that we would attribute intelligence to. Machine learning (ML) is commonly understood as a set of methods used to develop an AI. Both have seen a recent boom in usage, both in scientific and commercial fields. For the scientific community, ML can solve bottle necks created by complex, multi-dimensional data generated, for example, by functional brain imaging or *omics approaches. ML can here identify patterns that could not have been found using traditional statistic approaches. However, ML comes with serious limitations that need to be kept in mind: their tendency to optimise solutions for the input data means it is of crucial importance to externally validate any findings before considering them more than a hypothesis. Their black-box nature implies that their decisions usually cannot be understood, which renders their use in medical decision making problematic and can lead to ethical issues. Here, we present an introduction for the curious to the field of ML/AI. We explain the principles as commonly used methods as well as recent methodological advancements before we discuss risks and what we see as future directions of the field. Finally, we show practical examples of neuroscience to illustrate the use and limitations of ML.

A systematic review of the prevalence of postamputation and chronic neuropathic pain associated with combat injury in military personnel.

ABSTRACT: Combat trauma can lead to widespread tissue damage and limb loss. This may result in chronic neuropathic and post amputation pain, including phantom limb pain (PLP) and residual limb pain (RLP). The military population is distinct with respect to demographic, injury, and social characteristics compared with other amputation and trauma cohorts. We undertook a systematic review of studies of military personnel, with a history of combat injury, that reported a prevalence of any type of postamputation pain or chronic neuropathic pain, identified from Embase and MEDLINE databases.Using the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, we undertook a meta-analysis to determine an overall prevalence and performed exploratory analyses to identify the effect of the type of pain, conflict, and time since injury on prevalence. Pain definitions and types of pain measurement tools used in studies were recorded. Thirty-one studies (14,738 participants) were included. The pooled prevalence of PLP, RLP, and chronic neuropathic pain were 57% (95% CI: 46-68), 61% (95% CI: 50-71), and 26% (95% CI: 10-54), respectively. Between-study heterogeneity was high (I 2 : 94%-98%). Characterisation of duration, frequency, and impact of pain was limited. Factors reported by included studies as being associated with PLP included the presence of RLP and psychological comorbidity. The prevalence of postamputation pain and chronic neuropathic pain after combat trauma is high. We highlight inconsistency of case definitions and terminology for pain and the need for consensus in future research of traumatic injury.

Developing consensus on core outcome sets of domains for acute, the transition from acute to chronic, recurrent/episodic, and chronic pain: results of the INTEGRATE-pain Delphi process.

Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states. Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process. Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories. Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.

Responders and nonresponders to topical capsaicin display distinct temporal summation of pain profiles.

Introduction: Topical application of capsaicin can produce an ongoing pain state in healthy participants. However, approximately one-third report no pain response (ie, nonresponders), and the reasons for this are poorly understood. Objectives: In this study, we investigated temporal summation of pain (TSP) profiles, pain ratings and secondary hyperalgesia responses in responders and nonresponders to 1% topical capsaicin cream. Methods: Assessments were made at baseline and then during an early (ie, 15 minutes) and late (ie, 45 minutes) time points post-capsaicin in 37 healthy participants. Results: Participants reporting a visual analogue scale (VAS) rating of >50 were defined as responders (n = 24) and those with <50 VAS rating were defined as nonresponders (n = 13). There was a facilitation of TSP during the transition from an early to the late time point post-capsaicin (P<0.001) and the development of secondary hyperalgesia (P<0.05) in the responder group. Nonresponders showed no changes in TSP or secondary hyperalgesia during the early and late time points. There was an association between baseline TSP scores and the later development of a responder or nonresponder phenotype (r = 0.36; P = 0.03). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that baseline TSP works as a good response predictor at an individual level (area under the curve = 0.75). Conclusion: These data suggest that responders and nonresponders have different facilitatory pain mechanisms. The assessment of TSP may help to identify participants with stronger endogenous pain facilitation who may be more likely to respond to topical capsaicin.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thigmotactic behaviour in the open field test in rodent models associated with persistent pain.

Thigmotaxis is an innate predator avoidance behaviour of rodents. To gain insight into how injury and disease models, and analgesic drug treatments affect thigmotaxis, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed thigmotaxis in the open field test. Systematic searches were conducted of 3 databases in October 2020, March and August 2022. Study design characteristics and experimental data were extracted and analysed using a random-effects meta-analysis. We also assessed the correlation between thigmotaxis and stimulus-evoked limb withdrawal. This review included the meta-analysis of 165 studies We report thigmotaxis was increased in injury and disease models associated with persistent pain and this increase was attenuated by analgesic drug treatments in both rat and mouse experiments. Its usefulness, however, may be limited in certain injury and disease models because our analysis suggested that thigmotaxis may be associated with the locomotor function. We also conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression, but our findings on sources of heterogeneity are inconclusive because analyses were limited by insufficient available data. It was difficult to assess internal validity because reporting of methodological quality measures was poor, therefore, the studies have an unclear risk of bias. The correlation between time in the centre (type of a thigmotactic metric) and types of stimulus-evoked limb withdrawal was inconsistent. Therefore, stimulus-evoked and ethologically relevant behavioural paradigms should be viewed as two separate entities as they are conceptually and methodologically different from each other.

Addressing the elephant in the T-maze: Developing experimental conduct guidelines for neuroscience.

Personal view - no abstract.

Beyond biopsychosocial: The keystone mechanism theory of pain.

Pain is a deeply personal experience, with interindividual differences in its chronification and treatment presenting a formidable healthcare challenge. The biopsychosocial model (BPSm) has been hugely influential within nascent attempts at precision pain medicine, steering the field away from a reductionist biomechanical viewpoint and emphasising complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors which shape the individuality of pain. However, despite offering a strong theoretical foundation and holistic perspective, we contend that the BPSm remains limited in its capacity to deliver truly mechanistically informed treatment of pain. We therefore propose the keystone model of pain which offers a pragmatic balance between the dimensionality expansive BPSm and overly reductive approaches, providing both theoretical and practical advantages for the transition from treating populations to individual people.

Comprehensive quantitative sensory testing shows altered sensory function in women with chronic pelvic pain: results from the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) Study.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP), despite its high prevalence, is still relatively poorly understood mechanistically. This study, as part of the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) project, has used a full quantitative sensory testing (QST) paradigm to profile n = 85 women with and without CPP (endometriosis or bladder pain specifically). We used the foot as a control site and abdomen as the test site. Across 5 diagnostically determined subgroups, we found features which are common across different aetiologies, eg, gain of function in pressure pain threshold (PPT) when assessing responses from the lower abdomen or pelvis (referred pain site). However, disease-specific phenotypes were also identified, eg, greater mechanical allodynia in endometriosis, despite there being large heterogeneities within diagnostic groups. The most common QST sensory phenotype was mechanical hyperalgesia (>50% across all the groups). A "healthy' sensory phenotype was seen in <7% of CPP participants. Specific QST measures correlated with sensory symptoms assessed by the painDETECT questionnaire (pressure-evoked pain [painDETECT] and PPT [QST] [ r = 0.47, P < 0.001]; mechanical hyperalgesia (painDETECT) and mechanical pain sensitivity [MPS from QST] [ r = 0.38, P = 0.009]). The data suggest that participants with CPP are sensitive to both deep tissue and cutaneous inputs, suggesting that central mechanisms may be important in this cohort. We also see phenotypes such as thermal hyperalgesia, which may be the result of peripheral mechanisms, such as irritable nociceptors. This highlights the importance of stratifying patients into clinically meaningful phenotypes, which may have implications for the development of better therapeutic strategies for CPP.

Cutaneous nerve fiber and peripheral Nav1.7 assessment in a large cohort of patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

ABSTRACT: The mechanisms of pain in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) are still unclear, with some studies showing loss of cutaneous sensory nerve fibers that seemed to correlate with pain level. We report results of skin biopsies and correlations with baseline pain scores, mechanical hyperalgesia, and the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) in 294 patients who participated in a clinical trial of TV-45070, a topical semiselective sodium 1.7 channel (Nav1.7) blocker. Intraepidermal nerve fibers and subepidermal Nav1.7 immunolabeled fibers were quantified in skin punch biopsies from the area of maximal PHN pain, as well as from the contralateral, homologous (mirror image) region. Across the entire study population, a 20% reduction in nerve fibers on the PHN-affected side compared with that in the contralateral side was noted; however, the reduction was much higher in older individuals, approaching 40% in those aged 70 years or older. There was a decrease in contralateral fiber counts as well, also noted in prior biopsy studies, the mechanism of which is not fully clear. Nav1.7-positive immunolabeling was present in approximately one-third of subepidermal nerve fibers and did not differ on the PHN-affected vs contralateral sides. Using cluster analysis, 2 groups could be identified, with the first cluster showing higher baseline pain, higher NPSI scores for squeezing and cold-induced pain, higher nerve fiber density, and higher Nav1.7 expression. While Nav1.7 varies from patient to patient, it does not seem to be a key pathophysiological driver of PHN pain. Individual differences in Nav1.7 expression, however, may determine the intensity and sensory aspects of pain.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.