Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25245594›Full record

ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2014

[Chronic pain, pain disease, and satisfaction of patients with pain treatment in Germany. Results of a representative population survey].

W Häuser, G Schmutzer, P Henningsen, E Brähler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. [Differentiate neuropathic pain].Der Anaesthesist · 2021
    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.

W HäuserInnere Medizin I, Klinikum Saarbrücken gGmbH, Winterberg 1, 66119, Saarbrücken, Deutschland, whaeuser@klinikum-saarbruecken.de.
G Schmutzer
P Henningsen
E Brähler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are only few data from representative samples of the general German population on the prevalence of a "pain disease" and on satisfaction with pain therapy of persons with chronic pain available.

methodsA cross-sectional survey with people aged ≥ 14 years representative for the German population was conducted in 2013. Measures were obtained for presence of chronic pain (based on the definition of the International Association for the Study of Pain) and for "pain disease" by the presence of disabling pain in the Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire and increased psychological distress in the Patient Health Questionnaire 4. In case of chronic pain reports, the satisfaction with current pain treatment and current treatment by a pain specialist were assessed.

resultsResponses were received from 2508 (57.5 %) of the 4360 people contacted. The prevalence of chronic pain was 26.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 25.2-28.6 %]. A total of 7.4 % (95 % CI 5.0-9.9 %) met the criteria for chronic disabling nonmalignant pain, while 2.8 % (95 % CI 2.2-3.4 %) of participants met the criteria of a pain disease. In all, 31.9 % of persons with disabling pain reported current treatment by a pain specialist and 33.1 % of persons with disabling pain were (very) dissatisfied with current pain treatment. Treatment by a pain specialist was associated with higher health care use and lower treatment satisfaction.

conclusionThere is a need to improve the care of persons with chronic disabling pain. Whether pain specialist treatment is (cost) effective in chronic disabling pain needs to be examined by longitudinal studies.

Indexed as

Pain ClinicsPatient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultAgedChronic PainCooperative BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesDisability EvaluationFemaleGermanyHealth SurveysHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationMaleMiddle Aged

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.