ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2007
[Reduction in pain intensity after treatment for chronic back pain. When is it clinically meaningful?].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2007. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Pain staging, gender, and rehabilitation outcome in chronic low back pain. A pilot study].Der Orthopade · 2009Trial
- Transdermal fentanyl improves pain control and functionality in patients with osteoarthritis: an open-label Canadian trial.Clinical rheumatology · 2008Trial
- Development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders in the International Spine Registry, Spine Tango.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2011Article
- [Success of treatment in higher stages of pain chronification as well? An evaluation of the Mainz pain staging system based on the QUAST-analysis sample].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2011Article
- [Back pain. Many questions and still too few answers].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate how much change in pain intensity is necessary to discriminate between good, bad or no treatment outcome from the patient's point of view after therapy for chronic back pain.
methodsA total of 153 patients with chronic back pain were admitted to a 3 week multimodal treatment program including functional restoration and cognitive behavioral support (outpatient). Pain intensity was measured at the beginning of treatment and 6 months after discharge using a visual analogue scale (VAS). At this time, patients had to evaluate their back pain compared to the beginning of treatment as of better, equal or worse (global self-assessment).
resultsSix months after therapy, 48% of the patients assessed their back pain as better, 28% reported no change and 14% stated that their pain was worse. Mean pain reduction among the patients who assessed themselves as better was 25 points, while those who stated that their pain was worse had an average of 9 points more (VAS).
conclusionPatients' global self-assessment is a valid parameter to determine the outcome after treatment of chronic back pain. A clinically meaningful pain reduction can be assumed if there is at least a 25/100 point reduction (VAS), while a worsening of pain is already found to be important when there is a rise of 9/100 points.
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.