ReviewWorld journal of clinical cases2021
Chinese Association for the Study of Pain: Expert consensus on chronic postsurgical pain.
Review in World journal of clinical cases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Dose-Response Relationship Study of Prophylactic Nalbuphine to Reduce Pain During the Awakening Period in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Total Hysterectomy: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2022Trial
- Effect of Bilateral Quadratus Lumborum Block Type I on Patient Satisfaction and Incidence of Chronic Postsurgical Pain Following Cesarean Section-A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- Impaired Basal Forebrain Cholinergic Neuron GDNF Signaling Contributes to Perioperative Sleep Deprivation-Induced Chronicity of Postsurgical Pain in Mice Through Regulating Cholinergic Neuronal Activity, Apoptosis, and Autophagy.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Article
- Persistence of analgesic usage and opioid consumption in sarcopenic patients undergoing neuraxial anesthesia: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.Pain reports · 2024Article
- Editorial for the special issue of the Chinese Association for the Study of Pain.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic postsurgical pain is a common surgical complication that severely reduces a patient's quality of life. Many perioperative interventions and management strategies have been developed for reducing and managing chronic postsurgical pain. Under the leadership of the Chinese Association for the Study of Pain, an editorial committee was formed for chronic postsurgical pain diagnosis and treatment by experts in relevant fields. The editorial committee composed the main content and framework of this consensus and established a working group. The working group conducted literature review (1989-2020) using key words such as "surgery", "post-surgical", "post-operative", "pain", "chronic", and "persistent" in different databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Only publications in the English language were included. The types of literature included systematic reviews, randomized controlled studies, cohort studies and case reports. This consensus was written based on clinical practice combined with literature evidence. The first draft of the consensus was rigorously reviewed and edited by all the editorial committee experts before being finalized. The level of evidence was assessed by methodological experts based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. The strength of recommendation was evaluated by all editorial committee experts, and the opinions of most experts were adopted as the final decision. The recommendation level "strong" generally refers to recommendations based on high-level evidence and consistency between clinical behavior and expected results. The recommendation level "weak" generally refers to the uncertainty between clinical behavior and expected results based on low-level evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.