Page 511 Acute Pain Management
P. 511
Development process
A working party was convened to coordinate and oversee the development process. An
editorial subgroup of the working party (Assoc Prof Pam Macintyre, Prof Stephan Schug, Assoc
Prof David Scott, Dr Eric Visser and Dr Suellen Walker) coordinated the development process
and edited and/or wrote the sections. The working party also included Dr Douglas Justins
(Dean of the Faculty of Pain Medicine, Royal College of Anaesthetists in the United Kingdom)
and Prof Karen Grimmer‐Somers from the University of South Australia, who had been the
NHMRC‐appointed Guidelines Assessment Register representative for the second edition and
provided expert advice on the use of evidence‐based findings and the application of NHMRC
criteria for this edition.
A large panel of contributors was appointed to draft sections of the document and a
multidisciplinary consultative committee was chosen to review the early drafts of the
document and contribute more broadly as required. A list of panel members is attached in
Appendix A, together with a list of contributing authors and working party members.
Structures and processes for the revised edition were developed, and within these
frameworks contributors were invited to review the evidence and submit content for specific
sections according to their area of expertise. All contributors were given instructions about the
process of the literature search and the requirements for submission of their section, referred
to the website of the NHMRC document How to use the evidence: assessment and application
of scientific evidence (2000), and directed to the ANZCA website for copies of the second
edition of the document as well as an update that was published in 2007.
Members of the editorial subgroup of the working party were responsible for the initial editing
of each section, the evaluation of the literature submitted with the contributions and checking
for further relevant references. In a series of meetings the working party compiled and edited
an initial draft. Once the draft of the document had been prepared, it was sent to all
contributors for comment as well as members of the multidisciplinary panel, before being
redrafted for public consultation. For the second and subsequent drafts the working party had
the assistance of technical editors experienced in NHMRC requirements and processes. To
ensure general applicability, there was a very wide range of experts on the contributor and
multidisciplinary committee, including medical, nursing, allied health and complementary
medicine clinicians and consumers – see Appendix A.
The third edition of Acute Pain Management: Scientific Evidence is based on the NHMRC’s
recommendations for guideline development. That is, this review of the best available
evidence for acute pain management focuses on improving patient outcomes, is based on the
best evidence available, includes statements concerning the strength of levels of evidence
underpinning recommendations, and uses a multidisciplinary approach involving all
stakeholders (including consumers).
A companion document for consumers – Managing Acute Pain: a Guide for Patients – was
prepared after publication of the second edition of Acute Pain Management: Scientific
Evidence and approved by the NHMRC in December 2005 (ANZCA & FPM 2005).
Consideration is being given to revision of this consumer document. APPENDIX B
Competing interests
Conflicts of interest were managed by each of the five editors responsible for writing the
content of the document by completing an International Journal of Medical Editors Conflict of
Interest (ICMJE) Uniform Disclosure Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest. Copies of these
statements were forwarded to the NHMRC. No disclosures of interests were requested from
Acute pain management: scientific evidence 463
