Cancer pain… who cares? International and national patterns of evidence-based global guidelines recommendations for physicians on the Web (2011 vs. 2018)
- PMID: 32277615
Cancer pain… who cares? International and national patterns of evidence-based global guidelines recommendations for physicians on the Web (2011 vs. 2018)
Abstract
Purpose: Although pain is a common event during treatment of cancer, its assessment and management remains suboptimal in everyday clinical practice at global level.
Methods: Considering both the important role of internet in daily life and that clinical guidelines are important for translating evidence in clinical practice, we performed a prospective study to scrutinize the magnitude of updated evidence-based cancer-pain guideline recommendation for physicians on the web. Changes over-time at a global level were scrutinized at two time points: 2011 for baseline and 2018 at first follow-up. Both anesthesiology and oncology societies were analyzed.
Results: In 2011 we scrutinized 181,00 WebPages and 370 eligible societies were identified; 364 of these were eligible for analyses both in 2011 and 2018. The magnitude of cancer pain updated and evidence-based guideline recommendations on the web for health care providers was extremely low at global level and at any time point considered: 1.1% (4/364) in 2011 and 4.7% (17/364) in 2018. Continental and intercontinental patterns, National's highest developmental index, oncology tradition and economic-geographic areas were not found to influence cancer pain web-guideline provision. In 2018, pain & supportive care societies provided the highest rate of updated evidence-based cancer-pain guidelines for clinicians. Only 3/25 medical oncology societies and 1/34 radiation oncology societies, provided own or e-link (to other societies') evidence-based guidelines in their websites.
Conclusions: Major medical oncology and radiation oncology societies - at global level - fail to produce updated cancer pain recommendations for their physicians, with most of these providing no or inconsistent or outdated guidelines.
Similar articles
-
Facing internet fake-medicine and web para-pharmacy in the total absence of official recommendations from medical societies.J BUON. 2019 Jul-Aug;24(4):1314-1325. J BUON. 2019. PMID: 31646774
-
Global coverage and consistency of guideline recommendations for cancer cachexia on the Web in 2011 and 2018.Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2019;23(2):100-109. doi: 10.5114/wo.2019.85882. Epub 2019 Jun 13. Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2019. PMID: 31316293 Free PMC article.
-
Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome.Hum Reprod. 2018 Sep 1;33(9):1602-1618. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey256. Hum Reprod. 2018. PMID: 30052961 Free PMC article.
-
Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome.Fertil Steril. 2018 Aug;110(3):364-379. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.004. Epub 2018 Jul 19. Fertil Steril. 2018. PMID: 30033227 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Cancer cachexia: global awareness and guideline implementation on the web.BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2013 Jun;3(2):155-60. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2012-000227. Epub 2013 Jan 17. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2013. PMID: 24644563 Review.
Cited by
-
Patient and family support in the era of fake e-medicine: food for thought from an international consensus panel.ESMO Open. 2020 Apr;5(2):e000696. doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000696. ESMO Open. 2020. PMID: 32340999 Free PMC article. No abstract available.