ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2021
["A picture is worth a thousand words…" : Diagnosis of orofacial pain using Dolografie®].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2021. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince 2017, the diagnosis of patients with orofacial pain at the University Center for Dental Medicine Basel has been supplemented by using standardized image graphics (Dolografie® [Affolter/Rüfenacht, Bern, Switzerland]). For this purpose, patients select from a set of 34 cards those that visually best match their pain and then explain the reason for their choice.
objectives(1) How many cards are selected on average? (2) Do sex and age influence the choice of cards? (3) Are there preferences in the choice of cards? (4) Are there correlations between pain diagnostic categories (e.g., musculoskeletal versus neuropathic orofacial pain) and the cards selected? (4) Are there correlations between pain diagnostic categories (e.g., musculoskeletal versus neuropathic orofacial pain) and the selected cards?
methodsThe available complete pain anamnestic data of 143 patients were evaluated.
results(1) Patients selected an average of 3.5 cards to describe their pain. Up to six cards were sufficient for a detailed description of pain in almost all patients. With the 16 most frequently chosen cards, the majority of patients were able to adequately describe their pain. (2) Sex and age had no influence on the number of selected cards. (3) There were clear preferences: Card 02 was chosen most often (45 times), followed by cards 05 and 13 (27 times each). (4) A differentiating choice was made most clearly in neuropathic pain by a strong preference for card 28 and a disregard of card 18.
conclusionThe use of standardized image cards as a "visual communication tool" has proven to be a time-efficient procedure in the context of history taking, which helps to obtain clinically relevant information not previously expressed by the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33507369What 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.