ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Prevention and Management of Wound Procedural Pain Management in Adult Patients with Open Wounds: Integration of the Latest Clinical Evidence.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To retrieve, evaluate, and integrate the best available evidence on prevention and management of wound procedural pain management in patients with open wounds, providing evidence-based guidance for clinical practice. Patients and Methods: Following the "6S" pyramid model, we systematically searched guideline websites, professional association websites, and databases for guidelines, clinical decision aids, expert consensus statements, evidence summaries, recommended practices, and systematic reviews related to wound procedural pain management in patients with open wounds. The search period was from the establishment of the database to July 2025. Two researchers independently conducted literature quality assessment, evidence extraction, and synthesis. Results: A total of 23 documents were included: 5 guidelines, 1 expert consensus, 3 recommended practices, 3 clinical decisions, 6 evidence summaries, and 5 systematic reviews. Thirty-two best evidence statements were summarized across six aspects: pain assessment and documentation, education and training, dressing selection and replacement, wound cleansing, debridement, and negative pressure therapy, pharmacological intervention strategies, and non-pharmacological intervention strategies. Conclusion: This study reviews the best available evidence on managing procedural pain in open wounds. It offers guidance on the principles of pain management, standardization of procedural techniques, and the timely application of analgesic, emphasizing the importance of pain awareness. The research serves as a reference for developing specialized pain management protocols to improve wound care quality.
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.