Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 687

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

American Pain Society Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Acute and Cancer Pain Management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force

Gordon, Debra B., Dahl, June L., Miaskowski, Christine, McCarberg, Bill, Todd, Knox H., Paice, Judith A., Lipman, Arthur G., Bookbinder, Marilyn, Sanders, Steve H., Turk, Dennis C., Carr, Daniel B.·2005·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The American Pain Society (APS) set out to revise and expand its 1995 Quality Improvement Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain and to facilitate improvements in the quality of pain management in all care settings. METHODS: Eleven multidisciplinary members of the APS with expertise in quality improvement or measurement participated in the update. Five experts from organizations that focus on health care quality reviewed the final recommendations. MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched (1994-2004) to identify articles on pain quality measurement and quality improvement published after the development of the 1995 guidelines. The APS task force revised and expanded recommendations on the basis of the systematic review of published studies. The more than 3000 members of the APS were invited to provide input, and the 5 experts provided additional comments. The task force synthesized reviewers' comments into the final set of recommendations. RESULTS: The recommendations specify that all care settings formulate structured, multilevel systems approaches (sensitive to the type of pain, population served, and setting of care) that ensure prompt recognition and treatment of pain, involvement of patients and families in the pain management plan, improved treatment patterns, regular reassessment and adjustment of the pain management plan as needed, and measurement of processes and outcomes of pain management. CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve the quality of pain management must move beyond assessment and communication of pain to implementation and evaluation of improvements in pain treatment that are timely, safe, evidence based, and multimodal.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.165.14.1574

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Cited by

See all 687

Metadata

Authors
Gordon, D. B., Dahl, J. L., Miaskowski, C., McCarberg, B., Todd, K. H., Paice, J. A., Lipman, A. G., Bookbinder, M., Sanders, S. H., Turk, D. C., & Carr, D. B.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2005-07-25
Volume
165
Issue
14
Pages
1574
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157662040
Cited by
687
References
60
FWCI
35.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: American Pain Society Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Acute and Cancer Pain Management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.165.14.1574
The paper
Gordon, D. B., Dahl, J. L., Miaskowski, C., McCarberg, B., Todd, K. H., Paice, J. A., Lipman, A. G., Bookbinder, M., Sanders, S. H., Turk, D. C., & Carr, D. B. (2005). American Pain Society Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Acute and Cancer Pain Management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.14.1574

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.