Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19669705›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2009

[Concepts for perioperative pain therapy. A critical stocktaking].

S Reichl, E Pogatzki-Zahn

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

S ReichlKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Albert-Schweitzer-Str. 33, 48129, Münster, Deutschland.
E Pogatzki-Zahn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite numerous publications, new guidelines for the treatment of acute pain and efforts from a number of initiatives, there is still a tremendous need for improvement in postoperative pain therapy. One of the reasons for the shortcomings in the care of patients with postoperative pain is the lack of applicability of guidelines in daily clinical practice. Therefore, simple but effective and easy to implement concepts need to be developed. In the following review, different concepts that have been developed over recent years are presented and evaluated for their effectiveness. One of these is the notion of balanced analgesia, currently probably one of the most widely used perioperative therapy concepts. The idea of this concept is to reduce the doses of analgesics, e.g. opioids, through combinations of different classes of analgesics, thereby reducing their side effects. However, recent studies and essential meta-analyses indicate pitfalls using this concept. The pros and cons will be discussed and ideas on how to deal with balanced analgesia in daily practice will be given. Another pain concept of "procedure-specific postoperative pain therapy", is an appealing idea of an international initiative from surgeons and anaesthesiologists and an essential part of the German S3 guidelines for acute pain released last year. Critical evaluation of the available recommendations for procedure-specific analgesia together with the presentation of relatively simple but evidence-based algorithms for specific procedures may help to implement this concept in clinical routine.

Indexed as

Perioperative CareAnalgesia, EpiduralAnalgesia, Patient-ControlledAnalgesicsCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicDrug CombinationsHumansOrthopedic ProceduresPainPostoperative PainThoracic Surgical ProceduresAnalgesicsDrug Combinations

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.