ArticleBritish journal of pain2025
Identifying recommendations to improve therapy-led management of complex regional pain syndrome in England.
Article in British journal of pain, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a distressing pain condition that can lead to significant burdens for individuals and society. A small number of specialist CRPS-practice services exist, but access is limited; most patients are managed in local hospitals or community settings. In a series of phases, we sought to understand the needs and perspectives of therapy practitioners across the care pathway in England and to identify recommendations to improve therapy-led management of CRPS. Methods: In phase 1, we disseminated an e-survey to physiotherapists, occupational therapists and hand therapists across a range of settings. Phase 2 comprised semi-structured interviews with therapists and patients. Online stakeholder events (phase 3) were convened to review findings and prioritise suggestions to enhance CRPS care. Results: Seventy-seven therapists responded to the e-survey and 31 semi-structured interviews were conducted (n = 10 patients, n = 9 therapists from specialist CRPS-practice services, n = 12 therapists from other settings). N = 11 therapists and n = 5 patients participated in the stakeholder events. Findings indicated pathways of care are complex, but similarities exist in therapy approaches across settings, albeit with longer, more frequent appointments in specialist CRPS-practice services. Recommendations to improve CRPS management included: additional education provision for therapists (including better access to CRPS 'experts'), CRPS education for other clinicians, streamlining of patient pathways, and improving patient information. Conclusions: This work highlights opportunities to improve therapy-led care for people living with CRPS. Findings will be valuable in informing UK clinical guidelines and strengthening initiatives to enhance support for therapists.
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.