ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2015
[Cross-sectional subject 14--training in pain].
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interdisciplinary interactive blended learning concept in times of a pandemic - pain medicine "totally digital".GMS journal for medical education · 2025Article
- [Pain medicine teaching: a hard slog …but worth it!]Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2022Article
- Improving competence and safety in pain medicine: a practical clinical teaching strategy for students combining simulation and bedside teaching.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- [Cross-sectional field pain medicine Q14 - the Mainz model : Development of the pain medicine curriculum in the standard study course at the University Medical School of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2017Article
- [Establishment of the new cross-sectional field of pain medicine : An application example at the medical faculty of Heidelberg].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of pain medicine (cross-sectional subject 14, QF 14) into the Human Medicine study program is a great opportunity. A knowledge gap concerning the treatment of pain patients outside of specialized pain centers has been recognized for many years. This gap might be closed or at least reduced by a compulsory curriculum in pain medicine. If implementation of new lessons for QF 14 is not possible, pain medicine could be represented by labelled elements in the existing curriculum, in order to highlight the field. The core curriculum must now be converted into appropriate teaching and test formats. Due to the autonomy and heterogeneity of German medical faculties, no uniform solution will be achieved. In contrast, this diversity and the entirely new implementation of the cross-sectional subject will allow structured evaluation of different teaching and examination formats with respect to teaching outcome in benchmarking investigations in the coming semesters. Practically experienced lecturers and theory-driven medical educationalists are called upon to get involved with the development, implementation, and evaluation of pain medicine in undergraduate education in Germany. Teaching enthusiasts are encouraged to dedicate themselves to the strenuous, but stimulating task of implementing QF 14. The Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft (German Pain Society) will offer support for this.
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.