Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21818717›Full record

ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2011

[Recommendations on classification of German pain treatment services].

R Sabatowski, C Maier, A Willweber-Strumpf, M Thomm, P Nilges, H Kayser, R Casser

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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. [Multimodal pain therapy. Current situation].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2015
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. [Without structure no quality!].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2011
    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

7 authors.

R SabatowskiUniversitätsSchmerzCentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden. rainer.sabatowski@uniklinikum-dresden.de
C Maier
A Willweber-Strumpf
M Thomm
P Nilges
H Kayser
R Casser

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

On behalf of the German chapter of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) recommendations for German pain treatment services have been developed for the first time. The criteria were based on the IASP recommendations but adapted to the specific German situation. According to the structure and process criteria four different levels of pain treatment services can be distinguished. The aim of the recommendations is to serve as a guide for future development and implementation of pain therapy and quality assurance.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareBack PainChronic PainGermanyHeadache DisordersHealth Plan ImplementationHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth Services ResearchHumansPain ClinicsQuality Assurance, Health CareSocieties, Medical

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.