ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2017
[Chronic pain in general practice : Results from pain specialists].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding General Practitioner and Patient Perceptions Regarding Integration of Non-Pharmacological Interventions in Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Management-A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study in the RELIEF Project.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- [Pain therapy care in Germany-Do patients receiving day care differ from those receiving outpatient or inpatient care at the start of treatment? : A further evaluation based on the KEDOQ-pain data set].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently a lack of data on chronic pain in general practice.
methodsOver a period of 2 years, data from 12,271 patients visiting a pain specialist on an outpatient basis were collected. All patients had documented their pain history (German pain questionnaire) via tablet/computer into a databank.
resultsData from 12,246 patients from 30 pain clinics could be evaluated. The proportion of women was higher (67%). The majority of patients suffered from back pain (52%). The majority of patients were treated with injections (73%), and the majority of physicians were orthopedic surgeons (71%). A minority of patients had received psychological treatment (< 30%).
conclusionComprehensive pain documentation by the patients themselves is possible by means of a computer-based program. Back pain is the main problem in patients visiting a pain specialist. Invasive methods are the mainstay of treatment approaches. The psychosocial background of chronic pain seems to be underestimated in the treatment.
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.