ArticleJournal of pain research2021
An Italian Expert Consensus on the Use of Opioids for the Management of Chronic Non-Oncological Pain in Clinical Practice: Focus on Buprenorphine.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early and Multidisciplinary Management of Chronic Noncancer Pain and Conceptualization of Central Sensitization in Spain: Delphi CADOR Study.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- The use of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: recommendations from an expert Delphi consensus.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Personalized therapy in multiple sclerosis: an Italian Delphi consensus.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
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 at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the present work was to evaluate the knowledge and prescriptive habits of clinicians involved in the management of chronic non cancer pain (CNCP), with a special focus on the use of opioids.
methodsA Delphi method was used. A Board of specialists elaborated and discussed a series of statements, based on available literature and personal clinical expertise, about particularly controversial topics on pain pathophysiology and treatment. A Panel of experts in the field of pain management, selected by the Board, was invited to vote the proposed statements, indicating the level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: partially agree; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree). The threshold for consensus was set at minimum 66.6% of the number of respondents with a level of agreement ≥4 (Agree or Strongly agree).
resultsThe Board included 5 pain therapists, 1 pharmacologist and 1 methodology expert and drew up a total of 36 statements (for a total of 40 requested answers)". A total of 100 clinicians were included in the Expert Panel. Respondents were 89 (89%). Consensus was achieved for 32 out of 40 answers. Most of the lack of consensus was recorded for statements regarding opioids use, and resulted from a low level of agreement (3 on the Likert scale), suggesting a neutral position deriving from a lack of knowledge rather than a strong contrary opinion.
conclusionMost of the proposed items reached consensus, suggesting a generally homogeneous approach to CNCP management. However, the lack of consensus recorded for several items regarding opioid use confirms the need to fill important gaps in the knowledge of available agents. A clear explanation of the peculiar pharmacological properties of drugs associated with potential clinical advantages (such as buprenorphine) will help optimize pain treatment in both primary care and hospital settings and improving pain control in CNCP patients.
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.