SynthesisJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Quality Indicators for the Pharmacological Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Older Adult Patients: An Integrative Review.
Synthesis in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. 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.
- Implementing a clinical pharmacy intervention for older adult inpatients with chronic non-cancer pain: a feasibility study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Clinical Validation of Quality Indicators for the Pharmacological Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Older Adult Inpatients.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Developing Quality Indicators for the Pharmacological Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Older Adult Inpatients: A RAND/UCLA Delphi Study.Journal of pain research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleChronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) affects 28%-88% of older adults. They also experience more medication-related problems and are more likely to receive insufficient pain therapy, impacting their quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) can be used to assess and improve the quality of their care. AIMS AND
objectivesThis integrative review aimed to consolidate the scientific evidence on existing QIs for the pharmacological care of older adult patients with CNCP.
methodsWe systematically searched Medline and Embase via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, the SCOPUS databases and Google Scholar. We used backward citation searching to identify additional studies. We included studies reporting validated QIs and studies reporting quality-related factors associated with reduced medication safety caused by pain-related medication therapy. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts. One extracted and charted the data and assessed the risk of bias; the second validated this.
resultsWe screened 4068 articles identified through the systematic search of databases and 2774 articles identified via citation searching. Seventy-eight articles met our inclusion criteria and were retained for analysis. We extracted 11 validated QIs and developed a further 243 based on quality criteria reported in the literature. QIs covered different levels, from pharmacotherapy in general to particular substance groups and individual active substances. The risk of bias in the included studies was judged to be very high in the majority of studies.
conclusionThis integrative review established a scientific basis for developing QIs for the pharmacological management of older adult patients with CNCP. The high risk of bias present in the included studies, highlights the need for expert validation and input from patients. These indicators could help improve the quality of care provided to older adult patients with CNCP and help focus specific interventions on vulnerable 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.