Talk:Chronic pain

message: I have restored the advice of the NSW Health Department on the options for Chronic Pain. It seems to me they are at least moderately qualified to make recommendations. The full link is on the entry please consider reading it before simply deleting it. Yes some people need opiates, some peolpe can manages with less. Why not mention all of the options. I am just trying to help as many people as possible and I am sure you are as well. The points mentioned along the lines of thoughtless comments are acknowledged. Tim Timh2007 10:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to medications ==

message: The site in question is a fairly hardcore Christian site.  I've added warnings to the links on the front page, but I think the links just don't belong here at all.  I'd like to hear other people's opinions though.  BTW, I'm a Chronic Pain sufferer, and an active Christian, and I don't like the idea of using this article to proselytise the Faith. Johnpf 11:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent links to allaboutchronicpain 

message: [User:Docnelse] keeps adding links to the www.mensana.com website.  This website does not actually have any information about Chronic Pain that isn't already in the article, althougfh it does have a few references to journals that would be good on this page.  The Site itself is a purely-pay-per-view site where you pay to do an on-line test that purports to evaluate if you have been misdiagnosed.  You have to agree to a disclaimer that (a) you are not a US citizen (suggesting that it is illegal to offer such a service to Americans!!) and (b) that you realise this is not medical advice you're paying $45US a shot for.
WP is NOT an appropriate place to be soliciting for business.  If Mensana have information that they believe is appropriate for linking to a free, public and open community based encyclopedia, then they should make this information freely available, and not require payment for it. Johnpf 06:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Mensana.com 

message: I have significantly revised the content and section titles as well as added references and external links.Robert J. Kaplan MD 11:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic Rewritten 

message: I've reverted back to JoanneB's reversion, as the medications section had been replaced with editoralising, opinions and politics.  The opinion of one user's attitude relating to opiods has nothing to do with medications for Chronic Pain sufferers.  The whole "opiods are only appropriate for long term use in terminal cases" is cruel and clueless.  A person who has a non-terminal, uncurable Chronic Pain problem will probably see opiods as one of the few options to suicide.  Addiction is simply not an issue, as it's merely the price for being able to function at all, at least in my case, and in the opinion of most other sufferers of disabling pain which does not respond to non-narcotic analgesics.  Yes, I know I'm raving, but I get so pi##3d at people pushing politics on this topic.  I realise that opiods are terribly dangerous when used recreationally.  But Chronic Pain sufferers are not taking opiods recreationally - they are trying to regain their lives, function within their families and communities, and just get through another day.  Sometimes I wish the people pushing the political agenda of "all opiods are evil, and if you take them for a long time you're just a junky" would experience unremitting agony for a few weeks just for them to get some kind of perspective.  Yes there are side affects - but in context they are annoyances.  You might want to learn the difference between dependency (a physical condition) and addiction (a psychological behaviour).  Johnpf 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the one pushing politics! it was 211.30.78.228 or 220.239.247.231 making the bold statements about opiods only being relavent in terminal patients. I just made a poor attempt to clean up the article. I posted this
-------------
I have reverted it back to a concise discussion based on the overall summary of opioid medications as entered by Rkapla02. It is more accurate.Ukmc rjk 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reversion of DeadlyTab's edits 

message: To all the people that worked on this since I tagged it for needing improvement.Lonjers 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: There also other ways now for treating chronic pain through what I'll simply call "hardware", like the implatable infusion pump and neurostimulators from Medtronic and other companies? OracleDude 11:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; I can't believe that area was missing; I added a couple entries. MeekMark (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How about "hardware"?

message: I read somewhere that, according to a study carried out in late 2004, chronic pain may lead to brain damage, especially the grey matter areas. Should we point this out in the article? --Taraborn (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find the study and it's a medically reliable source, sure.  As heresay, it's not as useful.  WLU (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly not heresay that pain can produce reduced grey matter. It is well accepted by the scientific community and if you put it in Google Scholar you will find many sources to cite. However, it is very important to note that saying "chronic pain can produce reductions in cerebral grey matter" is NOT the same as saying "chronic pain can lead to brain damage". The latter is not accurate, while the former is. 132.216.43.98 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, reduction of grey matter that is reversible is far from brain damage. Thanks for whoever repaired that issue in the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain damage 

message: I wonder if the section on management would be better off in it's own article (i.e.  merged with the current Pain management), since the section here has better formed content and the issue deserves it's own article? LeeVJ (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain management 

message: I haven't seen any articles, or realy any mention about chronic pain and using medicinal mj.
I am a Prop 215 patient in CA and I suffer from PTSD and chronic pain due to multiple ankle surgeries. I have been using mj for a while now and it is much better than any opiates I have been prescribed. These days with the potency and the clean ways to inhale mj, it just makes sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.161.224 (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Medical cannabis could be included in a list of treatments for chronic pain. Anthony (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicinal Marijuana ? 

message: Uploaded: 
*:File:Schematic Examples of CNS Structural Changes in chronic pain.jpg
*:File:Schematic of cortical areas involved with pain processing and fMRI.jpg
--CopperKettle 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice images CopperKettle. They'll come in handy. Anthony (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of images

message: The introductory definition
:Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists longer than the temporal course of natural healing, associated with a particular type of injury or disease process
cites a journal article that doesn't actually define chronic pain. I'd like to propose this instead
:Chronic pain has several different meanings in medicine. Traditionally, the distinction between acute and chronic pain has relied upon an arbitrary interval of time from onset; the two most commonly used markers being 3 months and 6 months since the initiation of pain, though some theorists and researchers have placed the transition from acute to chronic pain at 12 months. Still others apply acute to pain that lasts less than 30 days, chronic to pain of more than six months duration, and subacute to pain that lasts from one to six months.
:A popular alternative definition of chronic pain, involving no arbitrarily fixed durations is "pain that extends beyond the expected period of healing."
I think it is important to explain the inconsistent usage and include the "duration-based" definitions, because many textbooks and researchers still use them and our readers will encounter them.
Comments? Thoughts? Anthony (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Outdated. See comment Definition below.  Luek 10m (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: This section is relevant to pain but not chronic pain. If it discussed neural theories of idiopathic chronic pain or the neuroanatomy of central pain syndrome, it would belong here but, as it stands, I believe it fits better into the Pain article which lacks such a description. Comments? Anthony (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move "[[Chronic_pain#Pain_in_the_nervous_system|Pain in the nervous system]]" to [[Pain]]

message: Can I propose reducing Management to a summary paragraph (with a "Main article" link to Pain management) and adding the bulk of this subsection to Pain management which is bereft of this kind of content? Anthony (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely! --Robert Daoust (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move "[[chronic pain#management|Management]]" to [[Pain management]]

message: Is this appropriate? I don't know what the guidelines are. Anthony (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New external link

message: *
:I can't access this at the moment but it says something about the poor quality of present knowledge of prevalence in adolescents and children (matching the quality of such information for adults). When I've read the article I might propose a small addition to Chronic pain#Epidemiology, unless someone beats me to it. I don't know if the telephone survey this article presently uses for its adult epidemiology has been reviewed for quality. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The epidemiology of chronic pain in children and adolescents revisited: a systematic review 

message: I am interested in creating a page on chronic pain in childhood, and would appreciate any advice or suggestions for what to include. Thanks! Rjpg12 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Full article from the Talk section above is here. Good luck. --Zefr (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Unclear that it needs a separate article.  how about building content here, and if it needs to be split we can do it then?  Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the feedback! I think there is enough content for a separate article, but am also open to just adding to this one. I've included an annotated bibliography on my talk page and would appreciate any additional suggestions. Rjpg12 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: New page proposal

message: I am editing this article between now and August to improve its Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease score (currently 52) to at least 60. You'll see several small edits that focus on improving the accessibility of the language used in this article. Mcbrarian (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Thorough review for reading ease

message: — Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

message: The whole first paragraph is outdated. Already fixed the first sentence ("3 months"). The whole discussion on what chronic pain is is dealt with and solved by Treede et al. 2015 (linked as 1) and Treede et al. 2019. The rest of the discussion are just artifacts. One can potentially just delete them or point out that there once was a discussion (plus references obviously). Ima get to it when I find the time.  Luek 10m (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition (first paragraph) 

message: The reference 5 (Andrews et al., 2018), about epidemiology, does not make sense, because it talks about "widespread Chronic Pain", which is just one kind of the many kinds of chronic pain. I am not sure, which study is the best on epidemiology (or in general importance of the topic (costs, burden etc.)), maybe one could use the references put forward in Treede et al. 2015 and 2019, or maybe check the IASP or WHO. Luek 10m (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Paragraph: Epidemiology 

message: This article has a lot of great information. Adding more in the opioid section might be helpful for people to have a better understanding of what it is and we might want to add more to the opioid section, so it does not sound as one sided. Right now, it sounds like it is trying to persuade people to only look negatively at opioids. Adding some benefits could help with balancing this. Pictures may also be helpful (in bringing the article together). Hannybanny01 (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions (for the opioid section and pictures).  

message: The sourcing I recently removed was: 1) Added by a user with an obvious conflict of interest. Their only edits are to add mentions of themself and their work to Wikipedia. 2) A 'A recent hypothesis-based analysis of literature' is not a systematic review - this does not meet WP:MEDRS. And 3) Frontiers Media is a well known predatory publisher. For all these reasons, this should not be in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion took place at my user talk rather than here, see . - MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI additions