ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2024
[Retrospective evaluation of electronically recorded patient questionnaires of a university outpatient pain clinic with the painDETECT® questionnaire].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePsychometric tests can provide important information for diagnostics and progression in chronic pain patients. Between 2008 and 2018, the electronic system painDETECT® was used in the outpatient pain clinic of the Hannover Medical School (MHH). The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the pain symptomatology data recorded using painDETECT® and the treatment procedures used in the patient cohort examined over a period of 15 months. MATERIAL AND
methodsA statistical analysis of baseline and follow-up data was performed. The analysis comprised pain-related parameters recorded by use of the painDETECT® system as well as outpatient records.
resultsBaseline data of 459 patients (66% women) could be evaluated. The most common clinical pictures were spinal pain, headache, facial pain, and somatoform disorders, mostly with many years of previous treatment. Approximately 40% showed evidence of neuropathic pain components or central sensitization. With a mean pain intensity of VAS 6 (0-10), a predominantly high degree of chronicity was present. Approximately one third showed a high degree of pain-related functional impairment. Slightly more than half showed evidence of clinically relevant depression. Approximately 80% showed clinically relevant sleep disturbances. Follow-up data were available for 145 patients (31.6%). The proportion of patients receiving a nonpharmacological form of treatment increased by 44.1% (physical therapy) and by 24.1% (psychotherapeutic procedures) during the observation period. The use of co-analgesics increased by approximately 30% over the course.
conclusionIn the outpatient setting, an extension of treatment can be successful for high-grade chronic pain patients. Close structural networking with the clinics for rehabilitation medicine and for psychosomatics and psychotherapy at the MHH can be a favorable prerequisite for this.
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.