Objective: Wikipedia is commonly used to acquire information about various medical conditions such as chronic pain. Ideally, better online pain management content could reduce the burden of opioid use disorders. Our goal was to improve the quality of the content available on Wikipedia to make it more accurate and applicable to medical students and the general public while training medical students to practice evidence-based medicine and critically assess their sources of information. Methods: An elective class in Neuroscience, Pain, and Opioids composed of 10 medical students met biweekly to discuss landmark and practice-changing research articles in the fields of acute pain, chronic pain, and opioid management. The professor chose Wikipedia articles relevant to this course. Three independent viewers analyzed the quality of citations, anecdotal medical content, and content value for both patients and medical professionals. As part of their coursework, students then edited the Wikipedia articles. Results: Although some of the Wikipedia pain topic content (6.7% ± 2.0) was anecdotal, financially biased, or inconsistent with Western Medical Practice content, overall articles included primarily high-quality citations (85.6% ± 3.1). On a 0-5 Likert scale, students felt content would be moderately helpful for both medical students/professionals (3.4 ± 0.2) and laypersons (3.5 ± 0.2). Editing and adding citations was feasible, but novel material was often reverted. Conclusion: A significant amount of pain medicine content was relevant and amenable to student editing. Therefore, future use of this tactic could provide a unique opportunity to integrate evidence-based medicine into the medical curriculum and have a direct impact on the widely available medical information. Future refinement in the editorial process may also further improve online information.

No abstract

Aim Prior research has primarily focused on static pain assessment, largely ignoring the dynamic nature of pain over time. We used a novel assessment tool for characterizing pain duration, frequency, and amplitude in women with dysmenorrhea and evaluated how these metrics were affected by naproxen treatment. Methods Dysmenorrheic women (n = 25) rated their menstrual pain by squeezing a pressure bulb proportional to the magnitude of their pain. To evaluate whether bulb squeezing was affected by naproxen, we compared parameters before and after naproxen. We also analyzed the correlation between pain relief on a numerical rating scale to changes in bulb squeezing parameters. Random bulb‐squeezing activity in pain‐free participants (n = 14) was used as a control for nonspecific effects or bias. Results In dysmenorrheic women, naproxen reduced the duration of the squeezing during a painful bout, the number of painful bouts and bout intensity. Before naproxen, the correlation between these bulb squeeze parameters and self‐reported pain on numeric rating scale was not significant (R2 = 0.12, p = 0.304); however, there was a significant correlation between changes in bulb squeeze activity and self‐reported pain relief after naproxen (R2 = 0.55, p < 0.001). Conclusion Our study demonstrates a convenient technique for continuous pain assessment, capturing three different dimensions: duration, frequency, and magnitude. Naproxen may act by reducing the duration and frequency of episodic pain in addition to reducing the severity. After further validation, these methods could be used for other pain conditions for deeper phenotyping and assessing novel treatments.

No abstract