ReviewDer Anaesthesist2005
[Postoperative pain management].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of different hydromorphone bolus doses in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for post-laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Boosting open-label placebo effects in acute induced pain in healthy adults (BOLPAP-study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Effects of benidipine, paracetamol, and their combination on postoperative and normal tissue pain thresholds.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- [Interprofessional education in pain management: development strategies for an interprofessional core curriculum for health professionals in German-speaking countries].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2012Review
- [Implementation of standardized postoperative pain therapy for orthopaedic patients. Comparison between unsystematic and standardized pain therapy].Der Orthopade · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although scientific interest in the field of pain research is unremitting and the understanding of acute pain mechanisms has eminently advanced, it is evident that clinical practice of postoperative pain management still has major deficits. Indeed, the use of regional analgesia via a catheter, e.g. epidural analgesia (EDA), or patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) has become very popular. These methods require special equipment, adequate nursing skills and professional expertise as well as the establishment of clinical procedures and an appropriate logistic setup. However, the majority of patients are not managed by EDA or PCIA and cannot be ignored due to lack of knowledge of the proper use of basic analgesic treatment. Therefore, it makes sense to establish a standardized step-concept of postoperative pain management with regular quality control integrated into a multimodal perioperative rehabilitation program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.