ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022
An interdisciplinary program for familiar faces with chronic pain visiting the emergency department-randomized controlled trial.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- An interdisciplinary program for familiar faces with chronic pain visiting the emergency department-randomized controlled trial.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary pain assessment program on pain and health-related quality of life among individuals with chronic pain who frequently visit the emergency department (ED).
methodsIndividuals with chronic pain who frequented the ED (ie, ≥8 visits within the previous 12 months) were randomly assigned to a collaborative chronic pain management program or treatment as usual. Primary outcomes were change in physical function and visits to the ED from baseline to 12 months using validated measures. Secondary measures included physical and emotional functioning, insomnia, health-related quality of life, risk of aberrant opioid use, and health care use. Mixed model analyses of variances were used to evaluate intervention effectiveness among the whole sample (ie, using intention to treat principles) and individuals who completed more than 50% of follow-up assessments.
resultsOne hundred participants were assessed for eligibility and 46 patients were enrolled with 24 being randomized to intervention and 22 to treatment as usual (TAU). Eleven of the 24 patients randomized to the intervention were lost to follow-up and 3 withdrew participation. Two of the 22 patients randomized to TAU were lost to follow-up, and 7 withdrew. Although patients assigned to the intervention improved more rapidly on measures of pain and health related quality of life, both groups had similar improvements overall between baseline to 12 months. Average pain intensity reduction (numeric rating scale [SE]) was 4.63 (0.40) in the intervention and 4.82 (0.53) in the treatment as usual at the 12-month follow-up. A significant group × time interaction was present for risk of aberrant opioid use, with individuals in the intervention group reporting greater improvement in risk of aberrant opioid use by 12-month follow-up.
conclusionParticipation in an interdisciplinary program may accelerate improvements in pain- and health-related quality of life and reduce risk of aberrant opioid use to manage pain and related distress. Further research is needed to better understand and address barriers to engagement in chronic pain care.
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.