| Title |
EULAR recommendations for the health professional’s approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212662 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rinie Geenen, Cécile L Overman, Robin Christensen, Pernilla Åsenlöf, Susana Capela, Karen L Huisinga, Mai Elin P Husebø, Albère J A Köke, Zoe Paskins, Irene A Pitsillidou, Carine Savel, Judith Austin, Afton L Hassett, Guy Severijns, Michaela Stoffer-Marx, Johan W S Vlaeyen, César Fernández-de-las-Peñas, Sarah J Ryan, Stefan Bergman |
| Abstract |
Pain is the predominant symptom for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and osteoarthritis (OA) mandating the development of evidence-based recommendations for the health professional's approach to pain management. A multidisciplinary task force including professionals and patient representatives conducted a systematic literature review of systematic reviews to evaluate evidence regarding effects on pain of multiple treatment modalities. Overarching principles and recommendations regarding assessment and pain treatment were specified on the basis of reviewed evidence and expert opinion. From 2914 review studies initially identified, 186 met inclusion criteria. The task force emphasised the importance for the health professional to adopt a patient-centred framework within a biopsychosocial perspective, to have sufficient knowledge of IA and OA pathogenesis, and to be able to differentiate localised and generalised pain. Treatment is guided by scientific evidence and the assessment of patient needs, preferences and priorities; pain characteristics; previous and ongoing pain treatments; inflammation and joint damage; and psychological and other pain-related factors. Pain treatment options typically include education complemented by physical activity and exercise, orthotics, psychological and social interventions, sleep hygiene education, weight management, pharmacological and joint-specific treatment options, or interdisciplinary pain management. Effects on pain were most uniformly positive for physical activity and exercise interventions, and for psychological interventions. Effects on pain for educational interventions, orthotics, weight management and multidisciplinary treatment were shown for particular disease groups. Underpinned by available systematic reviews and meta-analyses, these recommendations enable health professionals to provide knowledgeable pain-management support for people with IA and OA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 131 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 33 | 25% |
| Spain | 6 | 5% |
| Canada | 5 | 4% |
| Portugal | 4 | 3% |
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| Australia | 4 | 3% |
| Ireland | 3 | 2% |
| Greece | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Unknown | 45 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 81 | 62% |
| Scientists | 26 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 18 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 450 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 450 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 63 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 50 | 11% |
| Researcher | 34 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 6% |
| Other | 96 | 21% |
| Unknown | 147 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 106 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 69 | 15% |
| Psychology | 18 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 2% |
| Other | 64 | 14% |
| Unknown | 171 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 145. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2020.
All research outputs
#288,684
of 25,637,545 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
#102
of 7,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,429
of 339,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
#3
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,637,545 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.