ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2016
[Clinical studies on multimodal pain therapy : Standardized measurement of therapy outcomes with a core outcome set].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Developing, Evaluating and Implementing Digital Health Interventions Part II - Discussion Paper of the Digital Health Working Group of the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF)].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023Article
- Treatment Efficacy, Clinical Utility, and Cost-Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation Treatments for Persistent Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2018Review
- Core Outcome Sets and Multidimensional Assessment Tools for Harmonizing Outcome Measure in Chronic Pain and Back Pain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decision making in evidence-based medicine is based on general data on therapy outcomes as well as the effectiveness and safety in specific patient populations. Typically, findings concerning therapy outcomes from different studies are aggregated for a final conclusion. In this context a comparison of results is hampered by studies in which therapy outcomes are heterogeneously measured. Such methodological challenges exist for almost all areas of medical treatment, as well as for multimodal pain therapy (MMPT). Through establishing core outcome sets (COS) the required standardization of measurement of therapy outcomes in clinical research can be achieved. A COS is an evidence-based and consented minimum set consisting of outcome domains (i.e. partial aspects of the medical condition to be investigated, which have to be measured in order to give the best possible demonstration of therapy outcome of an intervention) accomplished by valid, reliable and sensitive measurement instruments which should be applied in each clinical trial. No such COS has so far been found for MMPT. The aim of this article is to give an overview about currently recommended methodological approaches to develop a COS accompanied by a brief introduction about existing COS initiatives focusing on chronic pain. The existing COS recommendations are discussed and conclusions are drawn on whether existing recommendations could also be applied for MMPT. Finally, the impact of healthcare research in Germany on a standardized assessment of therapy outcome in MMPT is outlined.
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.