Usefulness of the evidence-based medicine-supported cancer pain management guideline

2001 ◽  
Vol 5 (SA) ◽  
pp. 103-108
Author(s):  
Kazuaki Hiraga ◽  
Natsuko Nozaki-Taguchi
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cancer Pain Management ◽  
Management Guideline ◽  
Based Medicine

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management, Part I: Introduction and General Considerations

2008 ◽  
Vol 2;11 (3;2) ◽  
pp. 161-186
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines are part of modern interventional pain management. As in other specialties in the United States, evidence-based medicine appears to motivate the search for answers to numerous questions related to costs and quality of health care as well as access to care. Scientific, relevant evidence is essential in clinical care, policy-making, dispute resolution, and law. Consequently, evidence based practice brings together pertinent, trustworthy information by systematically acquiring, analyzing, and transferring research findings into clinical, management, and policy arenas. In the United States, researchers, clinicians, professional organizations, and government are looking for a sensible approach to health care with practical evidence-based medicine. All modes of evidence-based practice, either in the form of evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, or guidelines, evolve through a methodological, rational accumulation, analysis, and understanding of the evidentiary knowledge that can be applied in clinical settings. Historically, evidence-based medicine is traceable to the 1700s, even though it was not explicitly defined and advanced until the late 1970s and early 1980s. Evidence-based medicine was initially called “critical appraisal” to describe the application of basic rules of evidence as they evolve into application in daily practices. Evidence-based medicine is defined as a conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Evidence-based practice is defined based on 4 basic and important contingencies, which include recognition of the patient’s problem and construction of a structured clinical question, thorough search of medical literature to retrieve the best available evidence to answer the question, critical appraisal of all available evidence, and integration of the evidence with all aspects and contexts of the clinical circumstances. Systematic reviews provide the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic. While systematic reviews are close to meta-analysis, they are vastly different from narrative reviews and health technology assessments. Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that aim to help physicians and patients reach the best health care decisions. Appropriately developed guidelines incorporate validity, reliability, reproducibility, clinical applicability and flexibility, clarity, development through a multidisciplinary process, scheduled reviews, and documentation. Thus, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines represent statements developed to improve the quality of care, patient access, treatment outcomes, appropriateness of care, efficiency and effectiveness and achieve cost containment by improving the cost benefit ratio. Part 1 of this series in evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management provides an introduction and general considerations of these 3 aspects in interventional pain management. Key words: Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, narrative reviews, health technology assessments, grading of evidence, recommendations, grading systems, strength of evidence.

scholarly journals Independent Research on Cancer Pain Management in the Setting of Early Palliative Care: A Flywheel to Counteract General Opioid Misuse and Abuse

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (19) ◽  
pp. 7097
Author(s):  
Elena Bandieri ◽  
Leonardo Potenza ◽  
Fabio Efficace ◽  
Eduardo Bruera ◽  
Mario Luppi
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
World Health ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cancer Pain Management ◽  
Who Analgesic Ladder ◽  
Early Palliative Care ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Analgesic Ladder

The increased recognition of the high prevalence and important burden of cancer pain and the documentation of a large proportion of patients receiving inadequate analgesic treatment should have reinforced the need for evidence-based recommendations. The World health Organization (WHO) guidelines on cancer pain management—or palliative care—are traditionally based on a sequential, three-step, analgesic ladder according to pain intensity: nonopioids (paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) to mild pain in step I; weak opioids (eg, codeine or tramadol) to mild-moderate pain in step II; and strong opioids to moderate-severe pain in step. III. Despite the widespread use of this ladder, unrelieved pain continues to be a substantial concern in one third of patients with either solid or hematologic malignancies. The sequential WHO analgesic ladder, and in particular, the usefulness of step II opioids have been questioned but there are no universally used guidelines for the treatment of pain in patients with advanced cancer and not all guideline recommendations are evidence-based. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology have recommended the implementation of early palliative care (EPC), which is a novel model of care, consisting of delivering dedicated palliative service concurrent with active treatment as early as possible in the cancer disease trajectory. Improvement in cancer pain management is one of the several important positive effects following EPC interventions. Independent well-designed research studies on pharmacological interventions on cancer pain, especially in the EPC setting are warranted and may contribute to spur research initiatives to investigate the poorly addressed issues of pain management in non cancer patients.

scholarly journals A Perfect Storm in Interventional Pain Management: Regulated, but Unbalanced

2010 ◽  
Vol 2;13 (1;2) ◽  
pp. 109-116
Author(s):  
Ramsin M. Benyamin
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Research Bias ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Perfect Storm

Interventional pain management now stands at the crossroads at what is described as “the perfect storm.” The confluence of several factors has led to devastating results for interventional pain management. This article seeks to provide a perspective to various issues producing conditions conducive to creating a “perfect storm” such as use and abuse of interventional pain management techniques, and in the same context, use and abuse of various non-interventional techniques. The rapid increase in opioid drug prescribing, costs to health care, large increases in death rates, and random and rampant drug testing, can also lead to increases in health care utilization. Other important aspects that are seldom discussed include medico-legal and ethical perspectives of individual and professional societal opinions and the interpretation of diagnostic accuracy of controlled diagnostic blocks. The aim of this article is to discuss the impact of several factors on interventional pain management and overuse, abuse, waste, and fraud; inappropriate application without evidence-based literature support (sometimes leading to selective use or non-use of randomized or observational studies for proving biased viewpoints — post priori rather than a priori), and issues related to multiple professional societies having their own agendas to push rather than promulgating the science of interventional pain management. This perspective is based on a review of articles published in this issue of Pain Physician, information in the public domain, and other relevant articles. Based on the results of this review, various issues of relevance to modern interventional pain management are discussed and the viewpoints of several experts debated. In conclusion, supporters of interventional pain management disagree on multiple aspects for various reasons while detractors claim that interventional pain management should not exist as a speciality. Issues to be addressed include appropriate use of evidence-based medicine (EBM), overuse, overutilization, and abuse. Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, physician payment reform, fraud, abuse, evidence-based medicine, health care costs, comparative effectiveness research, bias

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document