Search

Introduction: Pain is a prominent complication in spinal cord injury (SCI). It can either occur as a direct or as an indirect consequence of SCI and it often heavily influences the quality of life of affected individuals. In SCI, nociceptive and neuropathic pain can equally emerge at the same time above or below the level of injury. Thus, classification and grading of pain is frequently difficult. Effective treatment of SCI-related pain in general and of neuropathic pain in particular is challenging. Current treatment options are sparse and their evidence is considered to be limited. Considering these aspects, a clinical practice guideline was developed as basis for an optimized, comprehensive and standardized pain management in SCI-related pain.Methods: The German-Speaking Medical Society for Spinal Cord Injury (Deutschsprachige Medizinische Gesellschaft für Paraplegiologie – DMGP) developed a clinical practice guideline that received consensus from seven further German-speaking medical societies and one patient organization. The evidence base from clinical trials and meta-analyses was summarized and subjected to a structured consensus-process in accordance with the regulations of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) and the methodological requirements of the “German instrument for methodological guideline appraisal”.Results: This consensus-based guideline (S2k classification according to the AWMF guidance manual and rules) resulted in seven on-topic statements and 17 specific recommendations relevant to the classification, assessment and therapy of pain directly or indirectly caused by SCI. Recommended therapeutic approaches comprise pharmacological (e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or anticonvulsants) and non-pharmacological (e.g. physical activity or psychotherapeutic techniques) strategies for both nociceptive and neuropathic pain.Discussion: Assessment of SCI-related pain is standardized and respective methods in terms of examination, classification and grading of pain are already in use and validated in German language. In contrast, valid, evidence-based and efficient therapeutic options are limited and ask for further clinical studies, ideally randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

[english] Objective: The evaluation of medical research performance is a key prerequisite for the systematic advancement of medical faculties, research foci, academic departments, and individual scientists’ careers. However, it is often based on vaguely defined aims and questionable methods and can thereby lead to unwanted regulatory effects. The current paper aims at defining the position of German academic medicine toward the aims, methods, and consequences of its evaluation. Methods: During the Berlin Forum of the Association of the Scientific Societies in Germany (AWMF) held on 18 October 2013, international experts presented data on methods for evaluating medical research performance. Subsequent discussions among representatives of relevant scientific organizations and within three ad-hoc writing groups led to a first draft of this article. Further discussions within the AWMF Committee for Evaluation of Performance in Research and Teaching and the AWMF Executive Board resulted in the final consented version presented here.Results: The AWMF recommends modifications to the current system of evaluating medical research performance. Evaluations should follow clearly defined and communicated aims and consist of both summative and formative components. Informed peer reviews are valuable but feasible in longer time intervals only. They can be complemented by objective indicators. However, the Journal Impact Factor is not an appropriate measure for evaluating individual publications or their authors. The scientific “impact” rather requires multidimensional evaluation. Indicators of potential relevance in this context may include, e.g., normalized citation rates of scientific publications, other forms of reception by the scientific community and the public, and activities in scientific organizations, research synthesis and science communication. In addition, differentiated recommendations are made for evaluating the acquisition of third-party funds and the promotion of junior scientists.Conclusions: With the explicit recommendations presented in the current position paper, the AWMF suggests enhancements to the practice of evaluating medical research performance by faculties, ministries and research funding organizations.

Copyright of Neurophysiologie-Labor is the property of Elsevier GmbH, Urban & Fischer Verlag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Targeted monitoring of analgesia, sedation and delirium, as well as their appropriate management in critically ill patients is a standard of care in intensive care medicine. With the undisputed advantages of goal-oriented therapy established, there was a need to develop our own guidelines on analgesia and sedation in intensive care in Germany and these were published as 2nd Generation Guidelines in 2005. Through the dissemination of these guidelines in 2006, use of monitoring was shown to have improved from 8 to 51% and the use of protocol-based approaches increased to 46% (from 21%).Between 2006–2009, the existing guidelines from the DGAI (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin) and DIVI (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin) were developed into 3rd Generation Guidelines for the securing and optimization of quality of analgesia, sedation and delirium management in the intensive care unit (ICU). In collaboration with another 10 professional societies, the literature has been reviewed using the criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine. Using data from 671 reference works, text, diagrams and recommendations were drawn up. In the recommendations, Grade “A” (very strong recommendation), Grade “B” (strong recommendation) and Grade “0” (open recommendation) were agreed.As a result of this process we now have an interdisciplinary and consensus-based set of 3rd Generation Guidelines that take into account all critically illness patient populations.The use of protocols for analgesia, sedation and treatment of delirium are repeatedly demonstrated. These guidelines offer treatment recommendations for the ICU team. The implementation of scores and protocols into routine ICU practice is necessary for their success.