Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25608500›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2015

[Standardized treatment protocols in acute postoperative pain therapy: analysis of contents of standardized medicinal concepts].

J Erlenwein, M Emons, A Hecke, N Nestler, S Wirz, M Bauer, W Meißner, F Petzke

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Quality of Postoperative Pain Therapy in German Hospitals.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017
    Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

J ErlenweinKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Zentrum Anästhesiologie, Rettungs- und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert Koch Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland, joachim.erlenwein@med.uni-goettingen.de.
M Emons
A Hecke
N Nestler
S Wirz
M Bauer
W Meißner
F Petzke
University of Göttingen · DECenter for Clinical Studies · USProtestant University of Applied Sciences Rhineland-Westphalia-Lippe · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandardized treatment approaches can improve the quality of the management of acute postoperative pain.

aimThe purpose of this study was to describe the content and structure of currently implemented standards for the management of acute postoperative pain in German hospitals and to better define the concept of a treatment standard for acute pain. MATERIAL AND

methodsWritten standardized treatment protocols from 68 hospitals for the management of acute postoperative pain were analyzed. The evaluation was based on the layout of processes, the baseline and rescue or on-demand analgesic medication and safety mechanisms.

resultsA treatment standard per hospital separated for adults (68 standards) and children (27 standards) was identified and analyzed. A baseline medication was provided in all standards for adults and in 89% for children. Of the 95 standards 68% routinely combined opioids and non-opioids as a basis (78% for adults and 42% for children). A way to adapt the baseline medication was described more often in standards for adults. Of the standards for adults 91% (85% for children) contained provisions for rescue or on-demand analgesia and half of them (both adults and children) included an immediate-release opioid formulation, which was readily available. For adults the availability was regulated by a predefined process in 29% of the standards (8% for children). In cases of persisting pain, repetition of the rescue medication was generally possible in 63% of adult standards (54% for children) but within 1 h after the first dose in only 43% (30% for children). Intervention limitations for application of the rescue medication (e.g., a defined score on the numeric rating scale) were set in 63% of adult standards (54% for children). A follow-up assessment of the pain intensity after a rescue medication was only required in approximately half of the standards and safety information or mechanisms were only rarely included.

conclusionContent, structure and type of the evaluated treatment standards showed a considerable heterogeneity with respect to the availability of rescue and baseline medication. Safety aspects were not addressed in many cases. These findings show that despite the requirements of the German guidelines for treatment of perioperative and posttraumatic pain for treatment standards, there are still no practical recommendations with respect to contents and structure of such standards.

Indexed as

AdultAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticAnalgesics, OpioidChildClinical ProtocolsGermanyHumansPain ManagementPain MeasurementPostoperative CarePostoperative PainAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID25608500
OpenAlexW92722038

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.