Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21336883›Full record

ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2011

[Epidemiology of chronic non-malignant pain in Germany].

R Wolff, C Clar, C Lerch, J Kleijnen

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Efficacy of Biofeedback in Chronic back Pain: a Meta-Analysis.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Neuropathic Pain.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R WolffKleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, Unit 6, Escrick Business Park, Riccall Road, Escrick, YO196FD York, UK.
C Clar
C Lerch
J Kleijnen
Kleijnen Systematic Reviews (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough chronic pain is a common health problem, epidemiological data are rare. The aim of this study is to present information on chronic, non-malignant pain in Germany.

methodsIn order to identify relevant studies on chronic pain (> 3 months) a total of 7 databases were searched in the timeframe from 1995 to 2009. Representative, recent, comprehensive and valid studies were selected.

resultsThe prevalence of chronic pain in Germany is estimated to be 17% and varies according to the underlying cause of the disease. Neck, shoulder and back pain are the most common forms. Chronic pain has a direct impact on quality of life (QoL), days off work and costs. A variety of drugs and non-drug treatments are used. However, treatment is often inadequate with 13-51% of the patients receiving insufficient pain therapy.

conclusionsChronic pain is a common problem which influences the QoL of patients resulting in high costs for the health system. Treatment is often inadequate. More research is needed to close knowledge gaps. The transfer of research results into clinical practice should be improved.

Indexed as

AbsenteeismChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHealth Care CostsHealth SurveysHumansIncidencePainQuality of LifeTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21336883
OpenAlexW1600003353

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.