Cited by 16Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UseClinical practice guidelines implementation

Managing chronic pain in the non-specialist setting: a new SIGN guideline

Open access
Smith, Blair H, Hardman, John D, Stein, Ailsa, Colvin, Lesley·2014·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

Chronic pain, defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time (taken to be 3 months),1 is a syndrome that affects a large proportion of the primary care population. It is ‘significant’ in around 14% of UK adults, imposing a heavy burden on the physical and psychosocial health of sufferers, their families and society, at high cost to the healthcare services.2 It was estimated in 2002 that people with chronic pain account for 4.6 million GP appointments in the UK, at an annual cost to the NHS of £69 million, equivalent to the employment of 793 GPs.3 Although many clinical conditions can lead to chronic pain, there are common underlying neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms, and the impact is generally independent of the clinical aetiology. Effective assessment and treatment of chronic pain therefore means that GPs should have: Unfortunately, none of these requirements is generally in place. Undergraduate training in management of pain is demonstrably minimal, accounting for <1% of programme hours,4 despite its high prevalence and impact. Much of the available evidence for potential interventions is derived from specialist settings or in specific clinical conditions, making it difficult to apply to a general primary care population. Even standard treatments, such as drugs, often lack evidence for effectiveness …

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 · 10.3399/bjgp14x680737

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, B. H., Hardman, J. D., Stein, A., & Colvin, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2014-06-30
Volume
64
Issue
624
Pages
e462-e464
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2165187530
Cited by
16
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
chronic pain, primary care, SIGN guidelines, general practitioners, pain assessment, pain management
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Humans, Scotland, Self Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, General Practice, Chronic Pain

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