ArticleBMJ open quality2023
Feasibility of a multidisciplinary Transitional Pain Service in spine surgery patients to minimise opioid use and improve perioperative outcomes: a quality improvement study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. 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.
- Transitional Pain Services and Clinics: A Scoping Review of Recent Literature.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Institution-Based Quality and Safety Improvement Initiatives in Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review.JBJS reviews · 2025Article
- Transitional Pain Service: An Update.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpine surgery patients have high rates of perioperative opioid consumption, with a chronic opioid use prevalence of 20%. A proposed solution is the implementation of a Transitional Pain Service (TPS), which provides patient-tailored multidisciplinary care. Its feasibility has not been demonstrated in spine surgery. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a TPS programme in patients undergoing spine surgery.
methodsPatients were recruited between July 2020 and November 2021 at a single, tertiary care academic centre. Success of our study was defined as: (1) enrolment: ability to enrol ≥80% of eligible patients, (2) data collection: ability to collect data for ≥80% of participants, including effectiveness measures (oral morphine equivalent (OME) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)-perceived analgesic management and overall health) and programme resource requirements measures (appointment attendance, 60-day return to emergency and length of stay), and (3) efficacy: estimate potential programme effectiveness defined as ≥80% of patients weaned back to their intake OME requirements at programme discharge.
resultsThirty out of 36 (83.3%) eligible patients were enrolled and 26 completed the TPS programme. The main programme outcomes and resource measures were successfully tracked for >80% of patients. All 26 patients had the same or lower OME at programme discharge than at intake (intake 38.75 mg vs discharge 12.50 mg; p<0.001). At TPS discharge, patients reported similar overall health VAS (pre 60.0 vs post 70.0; p=0.14), improved scores for VAS-perceived analgesic management (pre 47.6 vs post 75.6; p<0.001) and improved Brief Pain Inventory pain intensity (pre 39.1 vs post 25.0; p=0.02).
conclusionOur feasibility study successfully met or exceeded our three main objectives. Based on this success and the defined clinical need for a TPS programme, we plan to expand our TPS care model to include other surgical procedures at our centre.
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.