Cancer pain who cares? International and national patterns of evidence-based global guidelines recommendations for physicians on the Web (2011 vs. 2018).

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to produce updated cancer pain recommendations for their physicians, with most of these providing no or inconsistent or outdated guidelines.

Facing internet fake-medicine and web para-pharmacy in the total absence of official recommendations from medical societies.

PURPOSE: Internet fake information, parapharmacy and counterfeit drugs are a market of hundreds of billion dollars. Misleading internet data decrease patients' compliance to medical care, promote use of questionable and detrimental practices, and jeopardize patient outcome. This is particularly harmful among cancer patients, especially when pain and nutritional aspects are considered. Provision of Web recommendations for the general audience (patients, relatives, general population) from official medical-providers might be useful to outweigh the detrimental internet information produced by non-medical providers. METHODS: 370 oncology and anesthesiology related societies were analyzed. Our objective was to evaluate the magnitude of web-recommendation for cancer cachexia and cancer pain for the general audience provided by official medical organizations' web sites at global level. RESULTS: Magnitude of web-recommendations at global level was surprisingly scant both for coverage and consistency. Seven official medical societies provided updated web-recommendation for cancer cachexia to their patients/family members, and 15 for cancer pain. Scantiness was unrelated by continent, developmental index, oncology tradition, economic-geographic area and society type scrutinized. CONCLUSIONS: Patients need expert advice when exposed to fake internet information largely dominated by paramedical market profits. In this era of "new media" the patients' net-education represents a new major educational challenge for medical societies.