ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017
Assessing the prognostic features of a pain classification system in advanced cancer patients.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized Medicine in Cancer Pain Management.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- The Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain in Patients with Bone Metastasis: a descriptive cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Interdisciplinary intervention for the management of nonmedical opioid use among patients with cancer pain.Cancer · 2022Article
- The Patient with Difficult Cancer Pain.Cancers · 2019Article
- A neuropathic pain component as a predictor of improvement in pain interference after radiotherapy for painful tumors: A secondary analysis of a prospective observational study.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2018Article
- Outcomes of a Specialized Interdisciplinary Approach for Patients with Cancer with Aberrant Opioid-Related Behavior.The oncologist · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP) has been shown to predict pain management complexity based on five features: pain mechanism, incident pain, psychological distress, addictive behavior, and cognitive function. The main objective of our study was to explore the association between ECS-CP features and pain treatment outcomes among outpatients managed by a palliative care specialist-led interdisciplinary team.
methodsInitial and follow-up clinical information of 386 eligible supportive care outpatients were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.
resultsBetween the initial consultation and the first follow-up visit, the median ESAS pain intensity improved from 6 to 4.5 (p < 0.0001) and the median total symptom distress score (0-100) improved from 38 to 31 (p < 0.0001). At baseline, patients with neuropathic pain (p < 0.001) and those with at least one ECS-CP feature (p = 0.006) used a higher number of adjuvant medications. At follow-up, patients with neuropathic pain were less likely to achieve their personalized pain goal (PPG) (29 vs 72%, p = 0.015). No statistically significant association was found between increasing sum of ECS-CP features and any of the pain treatment outcomes at follow-up.
conclusionNeuropathy was found to be a poor prognostic feature in advanced cancer pain management. Increasing sum of ECS-CP features was not predictive of pain management complexity at the follow-up visit when pain was managed by a palliative medicine specialist. Further research is needed to further explore these observations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28386785What 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.