ArticleIndian journal of palliative care2013
Mechanism-based Classification and Physical Therapy Management of Persons with Cancer Pain: A Prospective Case Series.
Article in Indian journal of palliative care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cannabidiol from Conventional to Advanced Nanomedicines for the Management of Cancer-Associated Pain.CNS & neurological disorders drug targets · 2025Review
- Best-Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 2: Pain during and after Cancer Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- CT-guided microinvasive intervention in treating refractory carcinous pain.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
- Review
- Chemotherapy-Induced or Chemotherapy-Associated? Does Physical Therapy Play a Role in Prevention and/or Management of Peripheral Neurotoxicity and Neuropathy?Indian journal of palliative care · 2013Article
- Modern pain neuroscience in clinical practice: applied to post-cancer, paediatric and sports-related pain.Brazilian journal of physical therapyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextMechanism-based classification (MBC) was established with current evidence and physical therapy (PT) management methods for both cancer and for noncancer pain.
aimsThis study aims to describe the efficacy of MBC-based PT in persons with primary complaints of cancer pain. SETTINGS AND
designA prospective case series of patients who attended the physiotherapy department of a multispecialty university-affiliated teaching hospital. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 24 adults (18 female, 6 male) aged 47.5 ± 10.6 years, with primary diagnosis of heterogeneous group of cancer, chief complaints of chronic disabling pain were included in the study on their consent for participation The patients were evaluated and classified on the basis of five predominant mechanisms for pain. Physical therapy interventions were recommended based on mechanisms identified and home program was prescribed with a patient log to ensure compliance. Treatments were given in five consecutive weekly sessions for five weeks each of 30 min duration. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Pre-post comparisons for pain severity (PS) and pain interference (PI) subscales of Brief pain inventory-Cancer pain (BPI-CP) and, European organization for research and treatment in cancer-quality of life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30) were done using Wilcoxon signed-rank test at 95% confidence interval using SPSS for Windows version 16.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).
resultsThere were statistically significant (P < 0.05) reduction in pain severity, pain interference and total BPI-CP scores, and the EORTC-QLQ-C30.
conclusionMBC-PT was effective for improving BPI-CP and EORTC-QLQ-C30 scores in people with cancer pain.
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.