The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Acute Pain Management: Operative or Medical Procedures and Trauma
Abstract
Objective: To review the topics presented in the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Pain Management and provide updated information on therapeutic issues as necessary. Data Sources: AHCPR Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Pain Management: Operative or Medical Procedures and Trauma. A MEDLINE search (1990 to June 1996) of English-language literature pertaining to pain assessment and management was performed. Reference lists from relevant articles also served as a literature source. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All articles identified from the data sources were evaluated. Relevant information, as determined by the authors, was included in the review. Data Synthesis: Inadequate acute pain management continues to be recognized as a problem due to limited health professional education on the treatment of pain, inadequate patient empowerment, negative connotations associated with opioid analgesics (e.g., fear of “addiction”), federal regulations associated with prescribing opioid analgesics, and difficulty in assessing pain. The widespread inadequacy in pain management prompted the development of the AHCPR Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Pain Management, which was published in 1992. In addition to reviewing the pain guideline, this article includes updated information on ketorolac tromethamine, tramadol, local anesthetics, sedation, regional anesthetic techniques, and the management of opioid adverse effects. Conclusions: The AHCPR Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Pain Management is a comprehensive, yet functional, review for clinicians. Most issues relating to acute pain assessment and management are adequately discussed. Overall, this guideline is a worthwhile general resource to clinicians. It is important, however, for clinicians managing acute pain issues to supplement this guideline with more detailed and current information.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Zhang, W., Moskowitz, R. W., Nuki, G., Abramson, S., Altman, R. D., Arden, N., Bierma-Zeinstra, S., Brandt, K. D., Croft, P., Doherty, M., et al. (2008) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.013 · Cited by 2,796
A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines
Harbour, R., & Miller, J. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7308.334 · Cited by 1,637
Atkins, D., Eccles, M., Flottorp, S., Guyatt, G. H., Henry, D., Hill, S., Liberati, A., O'Connell, D., Oxman, A. D., Phillips, B., et al. (2004) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-4-38 · Cited by 1,235
“Since then a number of alternative approaches has been proposed and used to classify clinical practice guidelines [2-28].”
MethodPergolizzi, J., Böger, R. H., Budd, K., Dahan, A., Erdine, S., Hans, G., Kress, H., Langford, R., Likar, R., Raffa, R. B., et al. (2008) · Pain Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2008.00204.x · Cited by 854
Metadata
- Authors
- Follin, S. L., & Charland, S. L.
- Venue
- Annals of Pharmacotherapy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-09
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1068-1076
- ISSN
- 0012-6578 (ISSN-L)
- 1060-0280
- 1542-6270
- OpenAlex
- W2261890046
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 34.46
- 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: Acute Pain Management: Operative or Medical Procedures and Trauma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/106002809703100917
- The paper
- Follin, S. L., & Charland, S. L. (1997). Acute Pain Management: Operative or Medical Procedures and Trauma. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1177/106002809703100917
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.