ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2009
[What is the difference between patients with and without complex postoperative acute pain therapy?: An analysis of medical and economic characteristics].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany: telephone-based survey].Der Anaesthesist · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppropriate postoperative pain therapy is essential for an accelerated recovery. However, coding complex acute pain therapy (OPS 8-919) does not have any impact on hospital revenues. As medical and economic primary data related to this therapy are scarce, hospital data were analysed to identify differences between patients with and without acute pain therapy. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwo patient groups were generated out of an anonymized data set from 372 acute care hospitals in 2005: The case group (G1) included 4,197 patients (OPS 8-919 coded). The control group (G2) contained 61,181 patients (neither OPS 8-919 nor 8-910 nor 8-911 coded).
resultsThe analysis revealed that patients in G1 had a prolonged mean length of hospital stay (2.5 days). The mean number of diagnoses per case was similar in both groups (G1:6.9, G2:6.6), whereas the mean number of procedures was higher in G1 (G1:8.2, G2:6.2). The difference in mean diagnosis-related group (DRG) revenue per case was about EUR 200 (G1:EUR 9,233, G2:EUR 9,030).
conclusionTo validate the results found in this analysis, further evaluations of these patient groups are essential. High-quality documentation and coding in hospitals are required for future studies.
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.