Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2015
The pain--suffering association, a review.
Клинический случайСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fishbain David A, Lewis John E, Gao Jinrun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This review wished to determine the reported prevalence of suffering in various patient diagnostic groups and examine the evidence for the association of pain and suffering.
DESIGN/SETTING: Twenty-four studies fulfilled inclusion-exclusion criteria. They were divided into the following groups: advanced cancer/terminal illness/hospice patients (AC/TI/H) (7 studies); hastened death/assisted suicide/euthanasia patients (HD/AS/E) (14 studies); noncancer (NC) patients (3 studies). No chronic nonmalignant pain (CNMP) suffering studies fulfilled inclusion-exclusion criteria of this review. The reported prevalence of suffering for each study was abstracted and the overall percentage of sufferers in each grouping calculated. For those studies that provided a statistical relationship between pain and suffering information was abstracted for whether these studies supported/did not support the association of pain and suffering. A vote counting method was utilized to determine the overall percentage of studies supporting/not supporting this association. The consistency of this data for supporting this association was then rated by Agency for Health Care Research and Quality guidelines.
RESULTS: The prevalence of suffering in each grouping was as follows: AC/IT/H 45.7%; HD/AS/E 81.9%; NC 19.2%; and all groupings combined 59.9%. AC/TI/H and all groupings combined received an A rating (consistent evidence multiple studies for a statistical relationship between suffering and pain). HD/AS/E received a C (evidence which is inconsistent). For NC there were not enough studies for a consistency rating.
CONCLUSIONS: The above results indicate a consistent association between suffering and pain in some patient groups. Studies addressing suffering are needed in CNPM patients.
DESIGN/SETTING: Twenty-four studies fulfilled inclusion-exclusion criteria. They were divided into the following groups: advanced cancer/terminal illness/hospice patients (AC/TI/H) (7 studies); hastened death/assisted suicide/euthanasia patients (HD/AS/E) (14 studies); noncancer (NC) patients (3 studies). No chronic nonmalignant pain (CNMP) suffering studies fulfilled inclusion-exclusion criteria of this review. The reported prevalence of suffering for each study was abstracted and the overall percentage of sufferers in each grouping calculated. For those studies that provided a statistical relationship between pain and suffering information was abstracted for whether these studies supported/did not support the association of pain and suffering. A vote counting method was utilized to determine the overall percentage of studies supporting/not supporting this association. The consistency of this data for supporting this association was then rated by Agency for Health Care Research and Quality guidelines.
RESULTS: The prevalence of suffering in each grouping was as follows: AC/IT/H 45.7%; HD/AS/E 81.9%; NC 19.2%; and all groupings combined 59.9%. AC/TI/H and all groupings combined received an A rating (consistent evidence multiple studies for a statistical relationship between suffering and pain). HD/AS/E received a C (evidence which is inconsistent). For NC there were not enough studies for a consistency rating.
CONCLUSIONS: The above results indicate a consistent association between suffering and pain in some patient groups. Studies addressing suffering are needed in CNPM patients.