Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32930965›Full record

GuidelineInternal and emergency medicine2020

Approaching acute pain in emergency settings: European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) guidelines-part 1: assessment.

Saïd Hachimi-Idrissi, Frank Coffey, Wolf E Hautz, Robert Leach, Thomas C Sauter, Idanna Sforzi, Viliam Dobias

Open access · bronzeAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Internal and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. La Tunisie medicale · 2024
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Optimizing acute pain management in trauma care: the role, structure and core principles of acute trauma pain services.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Sex bias in pain management decisions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 5 countries.

Saïd Hachimi-IdrissiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. said.hachimiidrissi@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0002-8455-1410
Frank CoffeyNottingham University Hospitals' NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Wolf E HautzDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Robert LeachDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de Wallonie Picarde, Tournai, Belgium.
Thomas C SauterDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Idanna SforziAnna Meyer Children's Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Viliam DobiasSlovak Medical University, Bratislava, Slovakia.
University of Bern · CHCentre Hospitalier de Wallonie Picarde · BEGhent University Hospital · BEMeyer Children's Hospital · ITNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSlovak Medical University · SK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pain management is a vital component of patient care, particularly in the emergency setting. Pain can hinder the opportunities to treat and manage pain-causing conditions and remains one of the primary reasons patients seek emergency medical care, yet despite this, pain often remains under-acknowledged, under-assessed and undertreated. Despite the importance of effective management of acute pain, there are currently no well-defined emergency medicine guidelines at a European level to support healthcare professionals in achieving this goal. The European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) identified this as a significant unmet requirement, for improving day-to-day patient management and for providing guidance to trainees and non-emergency medicine physicians. Under the auspices of EUSEM, a programme-the European Pain Initiative-was launched with the aim of providing information, advice and guidance on pain management in pre-hospital and emergency department settings. Search terms were developed to search MEDLINE, Cochrane database, Google Scholar and EMBASE online databases to return English language articles published in the last 10 years. A working package of reference materials was evaluated against inclusion and exclusion criteria and levels of evidence ascribed. A short survey was developed by the European Pain Initiative Steering Committee for completion by EUSEM members to evaluate actual clinical practice. A working document of > 800 publications was identified for further review and evaluation against agreed criteria. Some further publications were included by the Steering Committee to explore older literature for long-established analgesics, or newly emergent literature that was considered important for inclusion but was identified as the guideline development was underway. This article provides the methodology used to inform the guidelines, including survey results of EUSEM members on assessment and treatment of acute pain. A companion manuscript in this issue presents an evidence-based review and recommendations for individualised evaluation of acute pain in patients in emergency settings.

Indexed as

Acute PainEmergency MedicineEmergency Service, HospitalEuropeHumansPain ManagementPain MeasurementAcute painAnalgesiaEmergency careEmergency departmentPain assessmentPractice guidelinePre-hospital

Identifiers

PMID32930965
OpenAlexW3086082082

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.