Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31802414›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2020

Interventional pain management for chronic pain: a survey of physicians in Canada.

Harsha Shanthanna, Anuj Bhatia, Mohan Radhakrishna, Emilie Belley-Cote, Thuva Vanniyasingam, Lehana Thabane, Jason W Busse

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Harsha ShanthannaThe Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. shanthh@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4105-4465
Anuj BhatiaDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mohan RadhakrishnaThe Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Emilie Belley-CoteDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Thuva VanniyasingamThe Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jason W BusseThe Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
St. Joseph Hospital · USImpact · CAMcGill University · CAMcMaster University · CAPopulation Health Research Institute · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use of interventional pain management (IPM) modalities to alleviate chronic pain is increasing despite the lack of high-quality evidence. We undertook this survey to explore patterns, training, and attributes of IPM practice.

methodsWe administered a 32-item survey via seven Canadian physician member organizations, whose members were engaged in the management of chronic pain.

resultsOf 777 physicians contacted, 256 (33%) responded: 45 (6%) declined to participate and 211 (27%) agreed to participate; the number of participants answering any given question varied. One hundred and sixty-nine of 194 (87%) practiced IPM and 103 of 194 (53%) managed only non-cancer pain. Pain management training of ≥ six months was associated with higher odds of IPM training (odds ratio [OR], 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32 to 6.7), but not necessarily ongoing IPM practice (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.74 to 5.3). A substantial percentage of physicians (108 of 168 [64%]) practiced IPM based only on training received during either their base residency program or courses. Only 48 of 186 (26%) felt that there were adequate opportunities for IPM training, and 69 of 186 (37%) believed that their colleagues practiced IPM in accordance with the best current evidence.

conclusionsOur survey indicates that IPM practice and training were not uniform, and that interventional therapies for chronic pain may not be performed in accordance with the best available evidence. Our survey highlights a lack of IPM training opportunities, which may result in substandard training. Concerted efforts involving physician organizations and regulators are needed to standardize IPM training and develop clinical guidelines to optimize evidence-based practice.

Indexed as

Chronic PainPain ManagementPhysiciansCanadaHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID31802414
OpenAlexW2992249250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.