用50%的疼痛缓解作为满意的疼痛治疗结果标准的谬论

Joel L. Seres
{"title":"用50%的疼痛缓解作为满意的疼痛治疗结果标准的谬论","authors":"Joel L. Seres","doi":"10.1016/S1082-3174(99)70005-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Chronic pain treatment outcomes are difficult to standardize. Pain levels and improvement in pain often do not correlate with functional ability, need for medication, or suffering behaviors. The 50% threshold has become the standard for minimally adequate pain relief. In fact, there is little literature that supports such an outcome as meaningful. Because it is so easy to use, it has become in effect the “gold standard” of outcome. This review challenges its use as confusing and misleading and recommends its cessation. Current attempts at composite measures have promise.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101001,"journal":{"name":"Pain Forum","volume":"8 4","pages":"Pages 183-188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1082-3174(99)70005-X","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The fallacy of using 50% pain relief as the standard for satisfactory pain treatment outcome\",\"authors\":\"Joel L. Seres\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1082-3174(99)70005-X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Chronic pain treatment outcomes are difficult to standardize. Pain levels and improvement in pain often do not correlate with functional ability, need for medication, or suffering behaviors. The 50% threshold has become the standard for minimally adequate pain relief. In fact, there is little literature that supports such an outcome as meaningful. Because it is so easy to use, it has become in effect the “gold standard” of outcome. This review challenges its use as confusing and misleading and recommends its cessation. Current attempts at composite measures have promise.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Forum\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 183-188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1082-3174(99)70005-X\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S108231749970005X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S108231749970005X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

慢性疼痛的治疗结果很难标准化。疼痛程度和疼痛的改善通常与功能能力、药物需求或痛苦行为无关。50%的阈值已成为最低限度充分缓解疼痛的标准。事实上,很少有文献支持这样一个有意义的结果。因为它很容易使用,它实际上已经成为结果的“黄金标准”。本评论质疑其使用令人困惑和误导,并建议停止使用。目前采取综合措施的尝试有希望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The fallacy of using 50% pain relief as the standard for satisfactory pain treatment outcome

Chronic pain treatment outcomes are difficult to standardize. Pain levels and improvement in pain often do not correlate with functional ability, need for medication, or suffering behaviors. The 50% threshold has become the standard for minimally adequate pain relief. In fact, there is little literature that supports such an outcome as meaningful. Because it is so easy to use, it has become in effect the “gold standard” of outcome. This review challenges its use as confusing and misleading and recommends its cessation. Current attempts at composite measures have promise.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信