Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25972275›Full record

ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2015

[Pain therapy in German long-term care facilities in a European comparison. Results of the SHELTER study].

A Lukas, B Mayer, G Onder, R Bernabei, M D Denkinger

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. [Interdisciplinary pain therapy in the elderly].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Regional Differences in Prescribing Patterns of Metamizole in Germany Based on Data from 70 Million Persons.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

A LukasGeriatrie/Zentrum für Altersmedizin, Malteser Krankenhaus Seliger Gerhard Bonn/Rhein-Sieg, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Universität Bonn, Von-Hompesch-Str. 1, 53123, Bonn, Deutschland, albert.lukas@malteser.org.
B Mayer
G Onder
R Bernabei
M D Denkinger
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITAgaplesion Bethesda Klinik · DEInstitut für Medizinische Biometrie, Informatik und Epidemiologie · DEMalteser-Krankenhaus · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA considerable number of nursing home residents suffering from pain are insufficiently treated. International comparisons of pain management in German (GER) and other European (EU) nursing homes are still lacking.

objectiveThis study compared the treatment of pain in GER and EU nursing homes in order to improve allocation of therapeutic resources. MATERIAL AND

methodsA cross-sectional study was carried out with 4156 residents assessed using the interRAI instrument for long-term care facilities, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain management modalities. Only those residents reporting pain were included in the analyses (n = 1900 from EU and 245 from GER). Descriptive analyses and analyses of correlations between different parameters and pain were performed.

resultsMore than three quarters of the residents with at least moderate pain received pharmacological treatment (GER: 77.4 % and EU: 79.3 %). Combination therapy (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) was more frequent in Germany (approximately  13 %). Even in cases of moderate to severe pain one third of GER compared to one quarter of the EU residents received either no analgesic treatment or only on a when needed basis (PRN). Differences were also seen in drugs used (GER metamizole). The amount of PRN was higher in Germany (approximately 13 %, alone or in combination). Only 5 % received the recommended level of non-pharmacological treatment. Pain severity and decubitus were identified as important triggers for pharmacological treatment. Non-pharmacological treatment was used less often than analgesics (EU: 39.2 %, GER: 46.8 %). There were no differences regarding administration frequency and intensity of non-pharmacological treatments in residents with or without pain; however, non-pharmacological treatment was used less often in residents with successful pharmacological treatment.

conclusionThe data demonstrate significant deficits in the recognition and treatment of pain in residents living in German or other European nursing home facilities. Further scope for improvement is seen in better recognition of relevant pain, in the adequate use of PRN and long-term medication and especially in the use of activating non-pharmacological treatment.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonHomes for the AgedNursing HomesAgedAnalgesicsCombined Modality TherapyCross-Sectional StudiesDrug Therapy, CombinationEuropeGermanyHealth Care SurveysHumansPain ManagementPain MeasurementPressure UlcerAnalgesics

Identifiers

PMID25972275
OpenAlexW317413538

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.