ReviewPostgraduate medical journal2005
Functional abdominal pain.
Review in Postgraduate medical journal, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visceral Pain in Preterm Infants with Necrotizing Enterocolitis: Underlying Mechanisms and Implications for Treatment.Paediatric drugs · 2025Review
- Quantitative Assessment of Secondary Healthcare Utilisation by Patients With Functional Abdominal Pain.Cureus · 2022Article
- Functional human brain connectivity during labor and its alteration under epidural analgesia.Brain imaging and behavior · 2020Article
- Mechanisms and management of functional abdominal pain.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2014Review
- Functional abdominal pain.Current gastroenterology reports · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional abdominal pain or functional abdominal pain syndrome (FAPS) is an uncommon functional gut disorder characterised by chronic or recurrent abdominal pain attributed to the gut but poorly related to gut function. It is associated with abnormal illness behaviour and patients show psychological morbidity that is often minimised or denied in an attempt to discover an organic cause for symptoms. Thus the conventional biomedical approach to the management of such patients is unhelpful and a person's symptom experience is more usefully investigated using a biopsychosocial evaluation, which necessarily entails a multidisciplinary system of healthcare provision. Currently the pathophysiology of the disorder is poorly understood but is most likely to involve a dysfunction of central pain mechanisms either in terms of attentional bias, for example, hypervigilance or a failure of central pain modulation/inhibition. Although modern neurophysiological investigation of patients is promising and may provide important insights into the pathophysiology of FAPS, current clinical management relies on an effective physician-patient relationship in which limits on clinical investigation are set and achievable treatment goals tailored to the patient's needs are pursued.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.