Cited by 16Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UsePain Mechanisms and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Schmerztherapeutische Versorgung in Deutschland – was unterscheidet ambulante und stationäre Patienten zu Behandlungsbeginn?: Eine Auswertung auf Basis des KEDOQ-Schmerz-Datensatzes

Abstract

A comparison of chronic pain patients in outpatient and inpatient treatment settings regarding pain-related and psychological characteristics, has not yet been systematically analyzed. The core documentation and quality assurance in pain therapy (KEDOQ-Schmerz) is a quality assurance system for documentation and quality management of pain therapy in different treatment settings. The system was initiated by the German Pain Society. We used KEDOQ-Schmerz data to describe differences between patients being treated in outpatient and inpatient settings with respect to social, pain-related and psychological factors. In total, the set of KEDOQ-Schmerz data analyzed included information from 4705 patients (from 13 clinics) collected between January 2012 and April 2016. Patients received either outpatient (n = 2682) or inpatient (n = 2023) treatment. The data analyzed comprised sociodemographic, pain-related and psychological data collected through the German Pain Questionnaire (DSF) at the beginning of treatment as well as information about pain chronification and pain localization provided by practitioners. The statistical analysis was carried out by descriptive and comparative data analysis using univariate and multivariate statistical methods. Patients with inpatient treatment were significantly older, more often female and more often had multiple pain localizations. They described stronger pain intensity and more frequently had a higher Mainz Pain Staging System (MPSS) score of pain chronification. They described a significantly poorer physical and mental health-related quality of life in the short form (SF-12) health survey, had significantly higher depression, anxiety and stress values (DASS) and a poorer habitual well-being in the Marburg questionnaire on habitual well-being (MFHW). Significant group differences had only small effect sizes. Even though most predictors for the inpatient treatment setting in multivariate analysis were significant, in total they explained less than 5% of the variance. The results indicate that pain therapy in specialized pain settings more and more has to manage patients with higher pain chronification, higher pain-related stress and previous therapy experience. The differences in patient characteristics between treatment settings are mostly clinically unimportant. Differences in clinical features do not declare the allocation to one treatment setting or the other.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00482-017-0240-z

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. BARMER GEK (Hrsg) (2015) BARMER GEK Report Krankenhaus 2015. Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse, Bd. 33. Asgard Verlagsservice GmbH, Siegburg
  2. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Amsterdam
  3. Gerbershagen HU (1996) Das Mainzer Stadienkonzept des Schmerzes. In: Klingler D, al (Hrsg) Antidepressiva als Analgetika. Arachne, Linz, S 71–95
  4. Krauth J (1993) Einführung in die Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse (KFA). Beltz, Weinheim
  5. Pfingsten M, Nagel B, Emrich O et al (2006) Handbuch zum Deutschen Schmerzfragebogen. Überarbeitung Version 2015 Nagel B, Pfingsten M, Lindena G, Kohlmann T. Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft, Berlin. http://www.dgss.org/fileadmin/pdf/pdf_2/DSF-Manual_2015.pdf . Zugegriffen: 01.08.2017
  6. Wurmthaler C, Gerbershagen HU, Dietz G et al (1996) Schmerzchronifizierung und psychologische Merkmale – Die Beziehung zwischen Chronifizierungsstadien bei Schmerz und psychophysischem Befinden, Behinderung und familiären Merkmalen. Z Gesundheitspsychol 4:113–136

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hüppe, M., Kükenshöner, S., Bosse, F., Casser, H. R., Kohlmann, T., Lindena, G., Pfingsten, M., Petzke, F., & Nagel, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Lübeck (DE)
  • Universität Greifswald (DE)
  • Universitätsmedizin Göttingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Hüppe, M.
Venue
Der Schmerz
Published
2017-08-07
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
559-567
ISSN
  • 0932-433X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2129
OpenAlex
W2773273029
Cited by
16
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Der Schmerz (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
chronic pain, pain management, pain chronification, quality of life, anxiety and depression, patient characteristics
MeSH terms
Female, Germany, Humans, Inpatients, Outpatients, Quality of Life, Pain Management

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