ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Optimal Information for Chronic Pain (OICP): Delphi Consensus on Patient Assessment and Interventional Techniques.
Article in Journal of pain research, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Chronic pain is characterized by a persistence beyond the healing time of the injury. However, clinical documentation in this field remains highly variable, limiting the quality of patient care and research. Due to its multifactorial nature, a comprehensive evaluation of the methods used is essential. The objective of this work was to develop a consensus to define the optimal requirements for the evaluation of patients with chronic pain, with implications for real-world data analysis, predictive modeling, and standardized care pathways. Patients and Methods: A Delphi method was employed to gather expert opinions and to establish optimal criteria for evaluating chronic pain patients. After composition of the steering group and selection of the expert panel, based on clinical experience and multidisciplinary background, three surveys were conducted related to patient/pathology, treatment and follow-up. Survey items were derived from literature review and clinical guidelines and rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Three rounds per survey were conducted and the variables were categorized as essential if more than 70%/70%/75% of the experts agreed and less than 20%/10%/5% disagreed in each of the 3 rounds. The variables on which there was most consensus cover the whole pain management, including demographics, pain treatments, and follow-up assessing pain and medication consumption. Results: The number of variables considered essential to be collected were 38/60 in patient/pathology survey, 103/150 in treatment survey and 13/34 in follow-up survey, reaching an overall percentage of 63.1%. The variables on which there was most consensus cover all pain management, including demographics, pain treatments, and follow-up assessing pain and medication use. Conclusion: This work identifies several variables considered essential in the management of chronic pain patients, covering aspects related to the patient, pathology, treatment and follow-up, pointing out the importance of consensus within this field of medicine.
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.