To the Editor We read with interest the recent article by Kravitz and colleagues1 describing a randomized clinical trial comparing n-of-1 trials with standard care for treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain.
The goal of the study was to establish the “benefits of participating in an n-of-1 trial, not to assess the superiority or inferiority of any particular treatment.”1(1369) However, there appears to be a disconnect between the study goal and the choice of outcomes, which were focused on pain interference scores across different treatment regimens. Therefore, the null results should be interpreted with respect to treatment efficacy, not design. The n-of-1 participants who demonstrated a better response to 1 of 2 treatments were likely to experience improved pain outcomes as a result of continuing to receive the superior treatment. However, there was a high proportion (>75%) of n-of-1 participants who had no treatment superiority, and this may explain the trial’s findings.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
McDonald S, McGree J, Bazzano L. Finding Benefit in n-of-1 Trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):454–455. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8382
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: