ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2017
[Establishment of the new cross-sectional field of pain medicine : An application example at the medical faculty of Heidelberg].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies from recent years paint a picture of qualitatively deficient treatment in pain medicine. In order to improve the situation knowledge on targeted diagnostics and effective therapy should be imparted at an early stage during undergraduate studies. For this reason the cross-sectional field Q14 - pain medicine was newly created in the revision of the medical physician licencing regulations. The Q14 was then established in a longitudinal, multidisciplinary form at the medical faculty in Heidelberg, whereby the complete Kern cycle was run through. The present project report describes and discusses the establishment. The results of the first multiple choice examination and an online-based evaluation by the students are presented. The latter show that the students recognized the relevance of the teaching program for their future professional career; however, the presentation of the interdisciplinary aspect must still be improved. The students were critical of the longitudinal structure and this does indeed involve a great deal of organization for the faculty and students. On the other hand this corresponds to the basic conception of a cross-sectional field and gives a good depiction of the multidisciplinary character. The first evaluation results set the precedent for further fine adjustments of the cross-sectional field. A continuous further development is generally needed with respect to the Kern cycle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28194523What 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.