Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26271912›Full record

ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2015

[Multimodal pain therapy. Current situation].

U Kaiser, R Sabatowski, S C Azad

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. [Pain in patients with paraplegia].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2017
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

U KaiserUniversitätsSchmerzCentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
R SabatowskiUniversitätsSchmerzCentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. rainer.sabatowski@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
S C AzadKlinik für Anaesthesiologie, Interdisziplinäre Schmerzambulanz und Tagesklinik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A multidisciplinary approach for the management of patients with chronic pain is now well-established in many countries, especially in situations involving a complex disease process in the sense of a biopsychosocial model. Both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary pain treatment programs and their superiority compared to unimodal therapy has been documented in a number of studies, reviews and meta-analyses, in particular for patients suffering from chronic low back pain. Nevertheless, there are still major shortcomings concerning the definition of multimodal and multidisciplinary treatment and the quality of structures and processes, compared for example to the standards defined by the German Pain Society (Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft). Furthermore, there is still no consensus on specific therapeutic approaches, the differentiation between responders and non-responders as well as on the tools required for measurement. All these questions will have to be answered by concerted efforts in a multicenter setting.

Indexed as

Chronic PainCombined Modality TherapyHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationIntersectoral CollaborationPain ManagementTranslational Research, BiomedicalChronic painGuidelinesMeta analysisMultimodal pain therapyQuality of structures and processes

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.